Posted on Oct 2, 2015
"Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry"
31.8K
114
48
16
16
0
From: The Marine Corps Gazette
While reading the February issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, I skimmed past the “Be Bold” advertisement calling for readers to submit articles that challenge a Marine Corps policy or way of doing business. Immediately a current “hot topic” came to mind, but as usual I quickly discarded it because I have purposely avoided publicly disagreeing with the passionate opinions of many of my female peers and friends. After weeks of contemplation and debate, I am “being bold” and coming clean: I am a female Marine officer and I do not believe women should serve in the infantry. I recognize that this is a strong statement that will be vehemently challenged by many. I have not come to this opinion lightly and I do not take joy in taking a stance that does not support equal opportunity for all. I have spent countless hours discussing this topic with many civilians and Marines and have discovered that a large number of people agree with the arguments in this article but do not wish to get involved in the public discussion. Interestingly, most of the people who want to incorporate women into infantry are civilians or young, inexperienced Marines. Most of the more seasoned Marines with whom I have spoken tend to oppose the idea of women in infantry—perhaps this is failure to adapt or perhaps it is experienced-based reasoning. National Public Radio’s recent segment, “Looking for a Few Good (Combat-Ready) Women,” stated, “Col Weinberg admits there’s anecdotal evidence that female Marines, who make up 7 percent of the force, aren’t rushing to serve in ground combat.”1 If the infantry had opened to women while I was still a midshipman or second lieutenant I probably would have jumped at the opportunity because of the novelty, excitement, and challenge; but, to my own disappointment, my views have drastically changd with experience and knowledge. Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion. This article addresses many issues regarding incorporating women into the infantry that have yet to be discussed in much of the current discourse that has focused primarily on the physical standards.
Before you disagree, remember that war is not a fair business. Adversaries attempt to gain an advantage over their enemies by any means possible. Enemies do not necessarily abide by their adversary’s moral standards or rules of engagement. Although in today’s world many gory, violent war tactics are considered immoral, archaic, and banned by international law or the Geneva Conventions, adversaries still must give themselves the greatest advantage possible in order to ensure success. For the Marine Corps, this means ensuring that the infantry grunt (03XX) units are the strongest, most powerful, best trained, and most prepared physically and mentally to fight and win. Although perhaps advantageous to individuals and the national movement for complete gender equality, incorporating women into infantry units is not in the best interest of the Marine Corps or U.S. national security.
It’s Not About Individuals
My argument has little to do with whether women can pass the Infantry Officer Course or Infantry Training Battalion, or endure the hardships of combat. Even those select women who can physically endure the infantry are still posing a threat to the infantry mission and readiness. Female Marines who want to stir the pot by joining the infantry ranks are more interested in their careers than the needs of the Corps—they are selfish. 2dLt Sage Santangelo’s recent article in The Washington Post about why women are failing Infantry Officer Course argued that “the Marine Corps needs to set women up to succeed in combat roles.”2 Why? How will that contribute to a better fighting force, the needs of the Marine Corps, and the success of young enlisted Marines? The time, energy, and conflict associated with setting women up for success in infantry billets will not make the Marine Corps more combat effective.
I have no doubt that there are women who can pass initial infantry schools—and I applaud their strength. However, as Capt Katie Petronio argued in her 2013 Gazette article, “Get Over It! We are not all created equal,” long infantry careers for female Marines will eventually lead to career-ending medical conditions as they get older and their bodies are unable to withstand the years of constant infantry training.3 For the already fiscally strained military, this will lead to an increase in medically retired Marines who rate medical financial support for the rest of their lives.
Women who claim that they are not afforded traditional leadership opportunities by not being infantry officers are clearly not aware of the plethora of leadership opportunities in the Marine Corps. There are many other MOSs that provide great opportunities for leadership, some even more so than in the infantry. For example, communications or logistics lieutenants could have as many as 60 Marines in their charge. Great Marine officers embody leadership principals regardless of the MOS or billet they are assigned. Marines are taught to “grow where planted,” and a female Marine officer, regardless of MOS, can be just as successful as a male infantry officer if she is truly a leader and puts the needs of her Marines above her own. Success is about performance, not MOS. Women should seek opportunities to serve where they will be of most use to the Corps, not where the Corps can serve their personal career interests.
Many (mostly civilians) have argued that it is sexist and against the Nation’s attempt to promote gender equality to refuse infantry to women. Personnel in leadership positions have kept quiet or agreed to open the infantry to women for fear of being called sexist or of not promoting equal opportunities, or not wanting to be attacked by feminists. I am forever indebted to the many women who courageously advocated for the women’s rights that I enjoy today. Perhaps it is slightly unfair to the few women who desire to join the infantry, but that should be a necessary accepted evil because the needs of the Marine Corps are more important to society. Keeping women out of the infantry is not about oppressing women’s rights or blockading gender equality, it’s about maintaining the most combat effective military. In an age where U.S. hegemony is slowly decreasing and nations like China, Iran, and North Korea are building their conventional forces, citizens should be more interested in creating the strongest, best-trained, most ready infantry force to defend our national interests.
The Mission
Incorporating women into the infantry does not add to the infantry mission to “locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat.” Period. The mission does not say, “with ranks of equal men and women, locate, close with close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat.” The implied task is to create an infantry community of warriors that can best accomplish the mission. As all Marines are taught from day one of training, the mission always comes first. Marines attempt to accomplish the mission at all cost, and it is the duty of the higher headquarters of the Marine Corps to provide Marines with the best training and circumstances possible to accomplish the mission. Incorporating women into the infantry will actually make the mission more difficult to accomplish and take away from the training, readiness, and morale of the infantry units.
Several years ago the Marine Corps began allowing women into certain sections of special operations forces (SOF) and into the counterintelligence/human intelligence (CI/HumInt) MOS. The purpose behind this was to fill a gap and tap resources that men in those MOSs were unable to access. By nature of their gender, women were able to gain placement and access to information and locations that were previously untapped by men. As a result, the SOF and CI/HumInt communities grew stronger and more effective, and better accomplished their missions. The need for females to accomplish certain mission sets drove these communities to accept women. This same need does not exist in a basic rifle squad. Furthermore, the average age, experience, and maturity level of Marines in the SOF and CI/HumInt communities is much higher and more tolerant, which mitigates much of the testosterone-driven behavior that is a common characteristic of young infantrymen.
The argument that Israeli, Kurdish, and various other nations’ women serve in their infantries, therefore American women can serve in ours, is flawed. The Palestinians have vowed to “wipe Israel off the face of the planet” and are constantly causing riots or staging violent attacks in Israel. Israel’s mere existence is always in jeopardy, and in order to ensure its survival, they rely on conscription. Saddam Hussein conducted mass genocide of the Kurds in a campaign known as Al-Anfal. Kurdish women bore arms during Al-Anfal and have remained a Kurdish Peshmerga infantry unit ever since. In order to preserve their existence, Israelis and Kurds understand that they need manpower, professional training, and constant readiness within their infantry. They train women in their infantry to ensure they do not lose in a war of attrition or face another genocide. Israeli and Kurdish infantry women provide necessary manpower to their mission of survival. Its not about equal opportunity for the Israelis and Kurds, it’s about cultural survival—which is why it works. The all-volunteer U.S. military is not at war to defend the Nation’s existence; on the contrary, it has a surplus of manpower, is downsizing its number of servicemembers, and can afford to be exclusive. Again, there is no need to incorporate women into the infantry.
The Infantry Brotherhood
In addition to theoretical opposition to having women in the infantry, there are also very practical reasons why women do not belong amongst infantrymen. Having women in an infantry unit will disrupt the infantry’s identity, motivational tactics, and camaraderie. The average infantryman is in his late teens or early twenties. At that age, men are raging with hormones and are easily distracted by women and sex. Infantry leaders feed on the testosterone and masculinity of young men to increase morale and motivation and encourage the warrior ethos. Few jobs are as physically and emotionally demanding as the infantry, so to keep Marines focused, the infantry operates in a cult-like brotherhood. The infantry is the one place where young men are able to focus solely on being a warrior without the distraction of women or political correctness. They can fart, burp, tell raunchy jokes, walk around naked, swap sex stories, wrestle, and simply be young men together. Although perhaps not the most polite environment, this is the exact kind of atmosphere that promotes unit cohesion and the brotherly bond that is invaluable. This bond is an essential element in both garrison and combat environments. Ask any 0311 what encourages him to keep training or fighting in combat when he thinks he can go no further, and he will respond, “My brothers to my right and left.” No matter how masculine a woman is, she is still female and simply does not mesh with the infantry brotherhood.
While standing in line at the shoppette in civilian attire a few weeks ago, two young grunts stood behind me intimately describing the toned, fit body of a female on the front of a women’s athletic magazine. Subsequently, the Marines discussed how attracted they are to women who are in shape and how they can’t wait for the weekend when their squad was planning to go to the club to pick up ladies. Women in the Marine Corps are already in better shape than the average civilian and it can be assumed that any infantry woman will be a physical specimen. In the young, testosterone-filled infantry ranks, this is asking for love triangles, unit drama, and the potential for intraunit relationships. Platoon commanders in co-ed units already deal with a tremendous amount of drama, pregnancies, and sex in the co-ed unit barracks. Each time an issue arises, the platoon leadership spends a lot of time switching Marines’ barracks rooms, billets, etc. Oftentimes the unit equal opportunity (EO) representative must get involved to ensure gender bias does not occur. Infantry units bring significantly less drama to work because they don’t have women in their barracks or workspaces. This allows them to better focus on their mission, training, and readiness.
Logistics will also need to change if women are added to infantry units. Women require separate billeting, bathrooms, and other various “womanly” needs—things that could be difficult to provide in a combat environment and costly to build in the existing garrison infrastructure. Yes, in some situations (such as at The Basic School) women and men share fighting holes; however, doing so for extended periods of time in isolated combat environments with a population of stressed out 18- to 22-year-olds poses the potential for sexual relations, unwanted incidents, and drama (again, disrupting the brotherhood and taking the focus off the mission), not to mention the spouses of those who are married who now have the added burden of worrying about their husband sleeping next to another woman throughout his deployment. Yes, good leadership, added training, and logistical planning can mitigate these concerns, but that effort is not worth the benefit.
Sexual Assault/Harassment
Sexual harassment and assault is a huge issue in the military today, and few things are more disruptive. Although already not immune to sexual assaults/harassment, without women amongst their ranks, there are simply fewer opportunities for infantry Marines to be involved in sexual assault/harassment cases. Incorporating women into infantry ranks will increase the number of cases in infantry units, subsequently taking time away from training, readiness, and unit morale.
As a victim of sexual assault, jury member on a special courts-martial, and investigating officer in several preliminary inquiries, I can personally attest to the harm sexual assault/harassment has on any unit. Every time there is a report of sexual assault/harassment, several Marines have to dedicate important man-hours to resolving the issue. The special courts-martial I sat on required approximately 15 Marine officers to dedicate an entire week to the court-martial, putting a hold to all matters pertaining to their primary job. In addition, many other Marines were required to sit in the witness room for days waiting to testify in court. The judge advocates obviously spent months preparing for the trial, and many high-ranking unit commanders sat in court at various times throughout the week to keep tabs on their Marines. Several Marines had to change their permanent change of station orders due to the trial. Overall, one sexual assault case ended up costing the Marine Corps an absurd amount of time and money. The opportunity cost for the Marines involved in the case was costly to the Marine Corps and hurt unit readiness. As the pinnacle fighting elements of the Marine Corps, it is in the best interest of the infantry units to mitigate the opportunities for sexual assault/harassment. If women are part of infantry units, it will be a matter of when, not if, more sexual assault cases will happen.
Some counterargue that good training and leadership will prevent sexual assault/harassment. The Corps already invests significant time and money on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) annual training and hires full-time SAPR specialists. The issue persists. Incorporating women into the infantry would require more SAPR briefs to junior Marines, time that could have been spent at the range, doing land navigation, movement-to-contact training, etc. Furthermore, good leadership and discipline do not necessarily prevent sexual assault/harassment cases, and senior leaders are not immune. As the executive assistant to the Chief of Staff, I witnessed several EO and sexual assault/harassment cases against senior military officers—many of them substantiated. Neither any amount of SAPR training nor the best leaders can completely prevent sexual assault/harassment and EO cases. It is an issue that should be kept as far away from the infantry as possible.
Conclusion
Marine Corps infantry is not broken, so let’s not “fix” it. Women should be incorporated into the infantry if they can provide additional support to the infantry mission, thus filling a gap in the needs of the Marine Corps. Until that gap is identified, I do not believe it is in the Nation’s interest to allow women in the infantry. Most importantly, the incorporation of women takes time away from training, jeopardizes readiness, and puts undue strains and requirements on the unit. National leadership should be more concerned with ensuring the Marine Corps infantry units are as strong as possible to fight our Nation’s battles, not with avoiding a difficult EO debate, promoting a particular political agenda, or maintaining a certain public image. Above all, preserving national security should be the driving factor of infantry policy change.
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-not-belong-us-infantry#sthash.h3j7szKe.dpuf
While reading the February issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, I skimmed past the “Be Bold” advertisement calling for readers to submit articles that challenge a Marine Corps policy or way of doing business. Immediately a current “hot topic” came to mind, but as usual I quickly discarded it because I have purposely avoided publicly disagreeing with the passionate opinions of many of my female peers and friends. After weeks of contemplation and debate, I am “being bold” and coming clean: I am a female Marine officer and I do not believe women should serve in the infantry. I recognize that this is a strong statement that will be vehemently challenged by many. I have not come to this opinion lightly and I do not take joy in taking a stance that does not support equal opportunity for all. I have spent countless hours discussing this topic with many civilians and Marines and have discovered that a large number of people agree with the arguments in this article but do not wish to get involved in the public discussion. Interestingly, most of the people who want to incorporate women into infantry are civilians or young, inexperienced Marines. Most of the more seasoned Marines with whom I have spoken tend to oppose the idea of women in infantry—perhaps this is failure to adapt or perhaps it is experienced-based reasoning. National Public Radio’s recent segment, “Looking for a Few Good (Combat-Ready) Women,” stated, “Col Weinberg admits there’s anecdotal evidence that female Marines, who make up 7 percent of the force, aren’t rushing to serve in ground combat.”1 If the infantry had opened to women while I was still a midshipman or second lieutenant I probably would have jumped at the opportunity because of the novelty, excitement, and challenge; but, to my own disappointment, my views have drastically changd with experience and knowledge. Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion. This article addresses many issues regarding incorporating women into the infantry that have yet to be discussed in much of the current discourse that has focused primarily on the physical standards.
Before you disagree, remember that war is not a fair business. Adversaries attempt to gain an advantage over their enemies by any means possible. Enemies do not necessarily abide by their adversary’s moral standards or rules of engagement. Although in today’s world many gory, violent war tactics are considered immoral, archaic, and banned by international law or the Geneva Conventions, adversaries still must give themselves the greatest advantage possible in order to ensure success. For the Marine Corps, this means ensuring that the infantry grunt (03XX) units are the strongest, most powerful, best trained, and most prepared physically and mentally to fight and win. Although perhaps advantageous to individuals and the national movement for complete gender equality, incorporating women into infantry units is not in the best interest of the Marine Corps or U.S. national security.
It’s Not About Individuals
My argument has little to do with whether women can pass the Infantry Officer Course or Infantry Training Battalion, or endure the hardships of combat. Even those select women who can physically endure the infantry are still posing a threat to the infantry mission and readiness. Female Marines who want to stir the pot by joining the infantry ranks are more interested in their careers than the needs of the Corps—they are selfish. 2dLt Sage Santangelo’s recent article in The Washington Post about why women are failing Infantry Officer Course argued that “the Marine Corps needs to set women up to succeed in combat roles.”2 Why? How will that contribute to a better fighting force, the needs of the Marine Corps, and the success of young enlisted Marines? The time, energy, and conflict associated with setting women up for success in infantry billets will not make the Marine Corps more combat effective.
I have no doubt that there are women who can pass initial infantry schools—and I applaud their strength. However, as Capt Katie Petronio argued in her 2013 Gazette article, “Get Over It! We are not all created equal,” long infantry careers for female Marines will eventually lead to career-ending medical conditions as they get older and their bodies are unable to withstand the years of constant infantry training.3 For the already fiscally strained military, this will lead to an increase in medically retired Marines who rate medical financial support for the rest of their lives.
Women who claim that they are not afforded traditional leadership opportunities by not being infantry officers are clearly not aware of the plethora of leadership opportunities in the Marine Corps. There are many other MOSs that provide great opportunities for leadership, some even more so than in the infantry. For example, communications or logistics lieutenants could have as many as 60 Marines in their charge. Great Marine officers embody leadership principals regardless of the MOS or billet they are assigned. Marines are taught to “grow where planted,” and a female Marine officer, regardless of MOS, can be just as successful as a male infantry officer if she is truly a leader and puts the needs of her Marines above her own. Success is about performance, not MOS. Women should seek opportunities to serve where they will be of most use to the Corps, not where the Corps can serve their personal career interests.
Many (mostly civilians) have argued that it is sexist and against the Nation’s attempt to promote gender equality to refuse infantry to women. Personnel in leadership positions have kept quiet or agreed to open the infantry to women for fear of being called sexist or of not promoting equal opportunities, or not wanting to be attacked by feminists. I am forever indebted to the many women who courageously advocated for the women’s rights that I enjoy today. Perhaps it is slightly unfair to the few women who desire to join the infantry, but that should be a necessary accepted evil because the needs of the Marine Corps are more important to society. Keeping women out of the infantry is not about oppressing women’s rights or blockading gender equality, it’s about maintaining the most combat effective military. In an age where U.S. hegemony is slowly decreasing and nations like China, Iran, and North Korea are building their conventional forces, citizens should be more interested in creating the strongest, best-trained, most ready infantry force to defend our national interests.
The Mission
Incorporating women into the infantry does not add to the infantry mission to “locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat.” Period. The mission does not say, “with ranks of equal men and women, locate, close with close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat.” The implied task is to create an infantry community of warriors that can best accomplish the mission. As all Marines are taught from day one of training, the mission always comes first. Marines attempt to accomplish the mission at all cost, and it is the duty of the higher headquarters of the Marine Corps to provide Marines with the best training and circumstances possible to accomplish the mission. Incorporating women into the infantry will actually make the mission more difficult to accomplish and take away from the training, readiness, and morale of the infantry units.
Several years ago the Marine Corps began allowing women into certain sections of special operations forces (SOF) and into the counterintelligence/human intelligence (CI/HumInt) MOS. The purpose behind this was to fill a gap and tap resources that men in those MOSs were unable to access. By nature of their gender, women were able to gain placement and access to information and locations that were previously untapped by men. As a result, the SOF and CI/HumInt communities grew stronger and more effective, and better accomplished their missions. The need for females to accomplish certain mission sets drove these communities to accept women. This same need does not exist in a basic rifle squad. Furthermore, the average age, experience, and maturity level of Marines in the SOF and CI/HumInt communities is much higher and more tolerant, which mitigates much of the testosterone-driven behavior that is a common characteristic of young infantrymen.
The argument that Israeli, Kurdish, and various other nations’ women serve in their infantries, therefore American women can serve in ours, is flawed. The Palestinians have vowed to “wipe Israel off the face of the planet” and are constantly causing riots or staging violent attacks in Israel. Israel’s mere existence is always in jeopardy, and in order to ensure its survival, they rely on conscription. Saddam Hussein conducted mass genocide of the Kurds in a campaign known as Al-Anfal. Kurdish women bore arms during Al-Anfal and have remained a Kurdish Peshmerga infantry unit ever since. In order to preserve their existence, Israelis and Kurds understand that they need manpower, professional training, and constant readiness within their infantry. They train women in their infantry to ensure they do not lose in a war of attrition or face another genocide. Israeli and Kurdish infantry women provide necessary manpower to their mission of survival. Its not about equal opportunity for the Israelis and Kurds, it’s about cultural survival—which is why it works. The all-volunteer U.S. military is not at war to defend the Nation’s existence; on the contrary, it has a surplus of manpower, is downsizing its number of servicemembers, and can afford to be exclusive. Again, there is no need to incorporate women into the infantry.
The Infantry Brotherhood
In addition to theoretical opposition to having women in the infantry, there are also very practical reasons why women do not belong amongst infantrymen. Having women in an infantry unit will disrupt the infantry’s identity, motivational tactics, and camaraderie. The average infantryman is in his late teens or early twenties. At that age, men are raging with hormones and are easily distracted by women and sex. Infantry leaders feed on the testosterone and masculinity of young men to increase morale and motivation and encourage the warrior ethos. Few jobs are as physically and emotionally demanding as the infantry, so to keep Marines focused, the infantry operates in a cult-like brotherhood. The infantry is the one place where young men are able to focus solely on being a warrior without the distraction of women or political correctness. They can fart, burp, tell raunchy jokes, walk around naked, swap sex stories, wrestle, and simply be young men together. Although perhaps not the most polite environment, this is the exact kind of atmosphere that promotes unit cohesion and the brotherly bond that is invaluable. This bond is an essential element in both garrison and combat environments. Ask any 0311 what encourages him to keep training or fighting in combat when he thinks he can go no further, and he will respond, “My brothers to my right and left.” No matter how masculine a woman is, she is still female and simply does not mesh with the infantry brotherhood.
While standing in line at the shoppette in civilian attire a few weeks ago, two young grunts stood behind me intimately describing the toned, fit body of a female on the front of a women’s athletic magazine. Subsequently, the Marines discussed how attracted they are to women who are in shape and how they can’t wait for the weekend when their squad was planning to go to the club to pick up ladies. Women in the Marine Corps are already in better shape than the average civilian and it can be assumed that any infantry woman will be a physical specimen. In the young, testosterone-filled infantry ranks, this is asking for love triangles, unit drama, and the potential for intraunit relationships. Platoon commanders in co-ed units already deal with a tremendous amount of drama, pregnancies, and sex in the co-ed unit barracks. Each time an issue arises, the platoon leadership spends a lot of time switching Marines’ barracks rooms, billets, etc. Oftentimes the unit equal opportunity (EO) representative must get involved to ensure gender bias does not occur. Infantry units bring significantly less drama to work because they don’t have women in their barracks or workspaces. This allows them to better focus on their mission, training, and readiness.
Logistics will also need to change if women are added to infantry units. Women require separate billeting, bathrooms, and other various “womanly” needs—things that could be difficult to provide in a combat environment and costly to build in the existing garrison infrastructure. Yes, in some situations (such as at The Basic School) women and men share fighting holes; however, doing so for extended periods of time in isolated combat environments with a population of stressed out 18- to 22-year-olds poses the potential for sexual relations, unwanted incidents, and drama (again, disrupting the brotherhood and taking the focus off the mission), not to mention the spouses of those who are married who now have the added burden of worrying about their husband sleeping next to another woman throughout his deployment. Yes, good leadership, added training, and logistical planning can mitigate these concerns, but that effort is not worth the benefit.
Sexual Assault/Harassment
Sexual harassment and assault is a huge issue in the military today, and few things are more disruptive. Although already not immune to sexual assaults/harassment, without women amongst their ranks, there are simply fewer opportunities for infantry Marines to be involved in sexual assault/harassment cases. Incorporating women into infantry ranks will increase the number of cases in infantry units, subsequently taking time away from training, readiness, and unit morale.
As a victim of sexual assault, jury member on a special courts-martial, and investigating officer in several preliminary inquiries, I can personally attest to the harm sexual assault/harassment has on any unit. Every time there is a report of sexual assault/harassment, several Marines have to dedicate important man-hours to resolving the issue. The special courts-martial I sat on required approximately 15 Marine officers to dedicate an entire week to the court-martial, putting a hold to all matters pertaining to their primary job. In addition, many other Marines were required to sit in the witness room for days waiting to testify in court. The judge advocates obviously spent months preparing for the trial, and many high-ranking unit commanders sat in court at various times throughout the week to keep tabs on their Marines. Several Marines had to change their permanent change of station orders due to the trial. Overall, one sexual assault case ended up costing the Marine Corps an absurd amount of time and money. The opportunity cost for the Marines involved in the case was costly to the Marine Corps and hurt unit readiness. As the pinnacle fighting elements of the Marine Corps, it is in the best interest of the infantry units to mitigate the opportunities for sexual assault/harassment. If women are part of infantry units, it will be a matter of when, not if, more sexual assault cases will happen.
Some counterargue that good training and leadership will prevent sexual assault/harassment. The Corps already invests significant time and money on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) annual training and hires full-time SAPR specialists. The issue persists. Incorporating women into the infantry would require more SAPR briefs to junior Marines, time that could have been spent at the range, doing land navigation, movement-to-contact training, etc. Furthermore, good leadership and discipline do not necessarily prevent sexual assault/harassment cases, and senior leaders are not immune. As the executive assistant to the Chief of Staff, I witnessed several EO and sexual assault/harassment cases against senior military officers—many of them substantiated. Neither any amount of SAPR training nor the best leaders can completely prevent sexual assault/harassment and EO cases. It is an issue that should be kept as far away from the infantry as possible.
Conclusion
Marine Corps infantry is not broken, so let’s not “fix” it. Women should be incorporated into the infantry if they can provide additional support to the infantry mission, thus filling a gap in the needs of the Marine Corps. Until that gap is identified, I do not believe it is in the Nation’s interest to allow women in the infantry. Most importantly, the incorporation of women takes time away from training, jeopardizes readiness, and puts undue strains and requirements on the unit. National leadership should be more concerned with ensuring the Marine Corps infantry units are as strong as possible to fight our Nation’s battles, not with avoiding a difficult EO debate, promoting a particular political agenda, or maintaining a certain public image. Above all, preserving national security should be the driving factor of infantry policy change.
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-not-belong-us-infantry#sthash.h3j7szKe.dpuf
Marine Corps
Women in the Military
Infantry
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 22
2
2
0
Here's the deal: If a person (male, female, black, white, blond or red head) meets a common standard, who cares? There have been plenty of women in gorilla warfare in Souteast Asia, Europe and the Middle East. The key is to meet and exceed a standard. The anti women in combat arms was lost when women proved they could pilot fighters in combat. Think about it.
(2)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
It's guerrilla. And the people of whom you speak need every hand on deck. We do not. Further, every time we let women into something, the standards are always lowered. See airborne for an example.
(2)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Captain, they always do. Hell, I'm trying to think of a hump I've ever been on where some poor bastard wasn't carrying his gear and part of some WM's gear while she walked with just war gear, or more likely, rode in the safety vehicle. The majority of the Marine Corps doesn't pack the gear to be grunts. I fail to see why we should open up combat arms to females, especially since they don't pack the gear to be grunts either, and from what I understand, most of them have no interest in it.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Not all women can do combat, but not all men can either. The screening process works. let it do its job. If women cannot do combat, they really have no business being in the military. After all, that is part of the job.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Thank you so much CPT Serrano for your article.....you have made many and significant arguments concerning women in the Infantry from a female point of view that quite honestly I have never truly considered....you have made me rethink my conclusions of including women in combat roles and everyone considering moving in this direction should be made aware of your contribution....this is an excellent presentation and I highly recommend it for all to read and contemplate...the outcomes you have described are real and do not contribute to the positive outcome of the mission....again thank you!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
General Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps testimony before the SASC on Women in Combat. June 1991.
Nobody has ever said it better than General Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps testimony before the SASC on Women in Combat. June 1991. He was my first Commandant for a month when I was at OCS in June/July 1983. His son uploaded his entire testimony here on You tube. I like to watch it when I think of Women in the Infantry. Gen. Barrow commanded Company A, 1st Battalion 1st Marines during the Korean War and participated in the Inchon-Seoul campaign and in the Chosin Reservoir campaign. He has been described as the "finest regimental commander" of the Korean War. For his heroism in holding a pass near Koto-ri on December 9–10, 1950, he was awarded the Navy Cross.
The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Barrow
The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Barrow
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is absolutely true!! I cannot agree with this more! And it is not just for the Corps. The Army Infantry is in exactly the same boat. The 37 women that we have signed up for an 11 series MOS are going to be facing a tough road, and this is exactly why. But I truly hope they are prepared. Because they are going to EARN their place and not have it handed to them like a couple officers I know of that "passed" Ranger school. Infantry is a Brotherhood. It is Life. And it is Death. FOLLOW ME!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I enjoyed the article except for the sexual harassment/assault part. It's a little cringeworthy that someone would think that's an acceptable reason to keep women out of the infantry. Or is she saying that Marines have no self control where women are concerned?
(1)
(0)
SP5 Roberta Sanchez
Well, she, along with the armed services, congress and male dinosaurs are saying the same thing. The solution is to remove the women and that is a load of crap!
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
I didn't say that. Where physical strength and endurance isn't an issue, women perform just fine.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Roberta Sanchez
Cpl (Join to see) - They do. Some women can do combat. Most cannot. The ones who can should be allowed to do what they do with no change in standards!
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
I'm going to say this as politely as possible. This is not the private sector. You do not get a chance because you think you deserve it. In my case, the Corps chooses the people that are best suited for the mission. I have LITERALLY met guys who had one foot on the bus to Recon indoc get told "we found someone better than you, better luck next time." The Marines ran a study last year that cost 35 million dollars and discovered the following things: mixed gender units fire less accurately, get hurt significantly more, have more trouble overcoming physical obstacles, and are LESS LIKELY TO COMPLETE MISSION OBJECTIVES. I wrote that last bit in all caps because that is the purpose of the military, to complete combat objectives. The other thing they found out, that is most telling, when they did individual assessments of these Marines, the top 5 percent of the female Marines coincided with the BOTTOM 5% of the males. That means that fatbody who slows down the entire hump pace and barely makes a third class PFT is still better than the female's best. Every "chance" a female gets to go into a combat MOS school takes a away a job for a male who is more than likely better qualified to do the job, for longer. The infantry is a young man's game. Since females get injured more often, that means their lifetime in infantry will be shorter than their male counterparts. It is a waste of money and resources to let females, who 99% polled said they don't want to be in the infantry in the first place, for the sake of political expediency and so certain female officers can climb the ranks. I have never had a problem with WMs, for all the problems people claim they cause. I just think, and believe that most Marines would agree, that it is not about you getting opportunities, it is about you serving the needs of the Corps. We have WMs in every role that doesn't require pure strength and endurance. And some of them do better than their male counterparts in those roles, specifically fixed wing and rotary wing pilots. In short, combat arms, and the infantry specifically, is not broken. It doesn't need to be fixed.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Fantastic and well written...
There is no doubt that it is going to take push-back from military women, wives, and mothers to stop this debacle from happening. Any man who points out how ludicrous this coming experiment is, is going to be immediately labeled sexist. Thereby, cutting-out his right and ability to make an argument that is deemed, worthy enough to being heard.
I really do think American mothers should take up serious disagreement to this social-political move based on the eventual repercussion, of the draft. Thus, also immediately taking up a charge in opposition to the ideology of having a female side by side to one of, one's son in direct combat. There will be a legitimate and eventually litigious argument to the fact that, the military is knowingly sacrificing the safety of its troops when a provided situation, circumstance, or condition can be otherwise, elevated. Yet, it will be needed to be led by citizens who are not under military control. Furthermore, the reality is, it will be somebody's son who is sacrificed first before they lay a media barrage and get due attention.
Not even a third grader would by choice, bring a girl to a fist fight. Undoubtedly, We will come full circle after many lives are lost and our collective-social compass is re-oriented.
There is no doubt that it is going to take push-back from military women, wives, and mothers to stop this debacle from happening. Any man who points out how ludicrous this coming experiment is, is going to be immediately labeled sexist. Thereby, cutting-out his right and ability to make an argument that is deemed, worthy enough to being heard.
I really do think American mothers should take up serious disagreement to this social-political move based on the eventual repercussion, of the draft. Thus, also immediately taking up a charge in opposition to the ideology of having a female side by side to one of, one's son in direct combat. There will be a legitimate and eventually litigious argument to the fact that, the military is knowingly sacrificing the safety of its troops when a provided situation, circumstance, or condition can be otherwise, elevated. Yet, it will be needed to be led by citizens who are not under military control. Furthermore, the reality is, it will be somebody's son who is sacrificed first before they lay a media barrage and get due attention.
Not even a third grader would by choice, bring a girl to a fist fight. Undoubtedly, We will come full circle after many lives are lost and our collective-social compass is re-oriented.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
The only good thing about the draft including women, and this is mostly schadenfreude on my part, is the wailing from thousands of militant feminists crying out "That's not what we MEANT by equals!"
(1)
(0)
Cpl Elizabeth Koeneman
Cpl (Join to see) - I thought they decided against making women sign up for the draft? I argued with a few when they were discussing it because apparently to them equal doesn't really mean equal. One said she knew a lot of women who would never willingly join so why should they have to sign up for the draft? I pointed out there were plenty of men who would never willingly join, yet they have to sign up. My 10yo swears up and down he will never join but will still have to sign up for the draft in just under eight years. Most of his cousins won't, since they're girls.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
It got stripped from the final bill. As of right now we have an all volunteer military anyways, so technically there is no draft. Selective service exists to create one.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
There are some young men that should not be in the Infantry but they are there. I wonder how do you explain that to women that are excluded?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sorry , but as someone who has trained female officer's and enlisted in Preparation for the EFMB , women can be fully integrated as for all these claims of issues , let me help you out, the very first time a female Infantry soldier gets wounded in Combat, all of your reasons will go down the drain .... Infantryman will and can set aside feeling's for a woman and instead think of her as a fellow fighting soldier will they react the same as if it were one of the boy's ,No but they will not forget about the mission, they will simply adapt and move on. Doesn't matter if it's a Marine or Army Infantry , when you train together you build comaradarie . EFMB is the medical equivalent of the Expert Infantrymans Badge , and much like the EIB is very difficult to earn and many task's are combat related , like a 12 mile nature walk , carrying a wounded soldier on a stretcher, disassembly and reassembly with function check of ...wait for it M16 . And here's the kicker , they were all reservists , 20 went to try competing against active Army soldier's on an active Army Fort , specifically Ft. Leonard Wood. 10 earned the award out of 20 , the highest passing rate ever achieved by any group or unit but was file 13d due to best interest of the Army morale, why you have never heard about it, bottomline , American Women those who wish it can and should be allowed to fight alongside the boy's.... People spend to much time arguing over what might be , instead of let's adapt and make it happen...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google