Does this article prove that women should be in combat positions?

COL Ted Mc — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:43:58 -0500

From "The Marine Corps Gazette"

https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2015/01/outside-our-lane

Outside Our Lane - Bold and daring women do belong in all combat arms. A Rebuttal to “Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry”

The Marine Corps Gazette’s editorial decision not only to publish Capt Lauren Serrano’s article, “Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry”1 but additionally to award it first prize in the MajGen Harold W. Chase Prize essay contest is surprising and disappointing. Given their history of being thought leaders in a forum that challenges the status quo, this decision effectively moves the debate regarding women in the infantry backwards, harkening back to recent times with the same vernacular used to justify keeping homosexuals from serving openly, and even as far back as the 1940s, when many of these same points were used to justify continued racial segregation in the ranks. The article itself is based on outdated stereotypes, specious arguments, and poor logical reasoning, but what is more egregious is the Gazette’s all-male editorial advisory panel deciding to reward such a piece. In so doing, the Gazette has successfully undermined the purpose of the Chase Prize itself, which is to “challenge conventional wisdom,” “argue for a new and better way of doing business,” and to embody MajGen Chase’s belief that the Corps’ strength stems from “its ability to accept change.”2 Rather than embracing this ethos, the article is full of tired arguments defending the status quo, and reinforcing outmoded conventional thinking while simultaneously ignoring the Commandant’s measured, standards-based approach to researching the assignment of women as explained in the Marine Corps Force Integration Campaign Plan.3

Capt Serrano chooses to argue points that are independent of and separate from the salient issue that undergirds this debate—validated physical standards of the infantry and whether or not some women can meet them. Instead of focusing on abilities, she dwells on male infantry’s biases on why women, regardless of skill, should not serve among them. Furthermore, the article is rife with inaccurate stereotypes regarding male sexual behavior, overgeneralizing all women as physically incapable of service in the infantry, and the ever-present paranoia surrounding the falsely feared and exaggerated “women’s hygiene issues” in the field. The crux of Capt Serrano’s argument seems to be that young first-term infantry Marines possess a special, unique need to remain sequestered from women in order to fight well; furthermore, they apparently have more uncontrollable testosterone levels than other MOSs as well as their senior infantry counterparts serving in the special forces and/or working alongside counterintelligence Marines. Additionally, the captain maintains that these young infantry Marines have as their default setting sexual assault against women, enough even to make their wives worry about their husbands working alongside women in combat. This insults the capabilities, professionalism, intellect, and discipline of our Marines. We are better than that.

Outside Our Lane | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Corps Gazette’s editorial decision not only to publish Capt Lauren Serrano’s article, “Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2015 3:48 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:48:50 -0500

I think all that this article proves is that it is still a very divisive issue in today's military? A lot of people adopt the if it's not broke don't fix it and I agree with that. But if they can not only pass the training but excell in this environment without a lowering of standards more power to them. In the end they will be better for it and so will we as an institution. If the standards have to be lowered then it diminishes their achievement and weakens us.", combat does not differentiate between males and females and neither should we.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2015 8:41 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:41:08 -0500

I am all for allowing women to serve in ground combat MOSs provided as there is a single, gender-neutral physical standard that is at least equal to the current male standards. The women that can meet that have my full support. I am categorically opposed to lowering physical standards in order to artificially place a female population into the ground combat ranks. The mission is far too important, in my opinion.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 4:57 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:57:34 -0500

Not from what I've seen

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Mar 12 at 2015 3:33 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:33:41 -0400

COL Ted Mc, I vehemently disagree with the integration of women into combat arms. I vehemently disagreed with policies that were in place when I enlisted; this has not prevented me from serving.

The fact is that most women cannot hack current male military standards -- as in the APFT -- let alone current Infantry, Ranger, and SF standards. If they could, there would be no such thing as male or female grading scales. There would be one scale, representing the military standard. Consider the USMC attempt to transition to requiring female Marines to do pullups instead of a flexed arm hang. More than half couldn't even do the minimum of three pullups. Also consider that a woman who could do eight pullups would receive a maximum score, while a man would have to do twenty to get the same score.

For the very few women that can hack it, the logistical and social problems are -- in my view -- too great to bother with.
No one has a *right* to serve in the military in any capacity. The military has a job to do, and anything or any one that detracts from that job has no business being there.
As the powers that be discover basic biological differences between men and women that common sense could have revealed to them long ago -- if they had common sense -- they are moving to reevaluate the standards, to determine whether they actually need to be as high as they are, or if the standards are mere sexist obstacles to integration.

Does anybody really think it's a good idea to make all of combat arms physically weaker, to accommodate social experimentation on our national defense?

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 5:03 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:03:35 -0400

Women have always been in combat. The issue has only come up because of media coverage. As a tactical air traffic controller convoying into Iraq in 2003, my female NCO that road shot gun for me fired her M-16 more than I did.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 13 at 2015 8:17 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:17:31 -0400

Here's the thing: There is no such thing as "relative" in combat. Either you can do the job or you can't. The fitness standards are one way to ensure that you have, at least, the physical fitness level to do the job, which is why there should only be 1 standard for jobs that need that level of fitness. Women are not going to haul relative weight, when out on patrol. They are going to have to carry the same amount of weight as their male counterparts, move just as fast, for just as long. Are there women out there who can do it? Yes. But we shouldn't lower the standard just to give women "career opportunities". Just as I wouldn't want a doctor who was given an easier standard on his medical boards compared to his peers, I don't want infantrymen who were allowed an easier standard.

Response by SSgt Stevan Auldridge made Mar 14 at 2015 12:29 PM

SSgt Stevan Auldridge — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 12:29:20 -0400

All positions in the military should be open to women, but also there should only be ONE standard of testing for those positions. If you have the physical and mental aptitude to complete the training then your good to go. BUT everything must be equitable in testing. I could care less if the person next to me has ovaries or testicles. I do care if they can perform and not be a liability. One standard for both genders. Equality is equality. Women have served in military roles both historically and in modern times with distinction to include combat. Russia, WW2. Israel today. (Oh and why are women not having to sign for selective service again?)

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 14 at 2015 9:49 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 21:49:15 -0400

No. It proves nothing. It is an editorial? The only thing that will prove or disprove this, will be putting woman in the positions. I am not advocating that by any means, by any means. If the DOD does their studies and various pilots correctly, we have a pretty good idea of where to start.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 9:45 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 09:45:52 -0400

To me, the question has always been does this make our military better or weaker?
Society changes.
Standards change.
But society should not drive a standards change. The realities of the mission should. I do not think that is what is going on.

I have served with many fine women in my 22 years in the Army. Tough as nails, tactically and technically proficient in their craft. Many I still count as the best Soldiers I ever had. But that does not mean that these changes make sense.
Both sides of the issue should put forth cogent, coherent reasons why this change makes the military service better or not. That should drive the discussion, but seems to be lacking.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 3:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 15:17:53 -0400

The recent results of the Infantry Officers Course prove the point. The standards must and will be maintained, anything less is not only irresponsible, but a disservice to the nation, who depend on those being on the cutting edge of battle to be the very best, without compromises laid on the alter of political correctness. Such a compromise merely to facilitate the political whims of radical feminism, and the self serving narcissism, masking itself as professional advancement, among a certain minority of Women Marines (almost predominantly of the officer ranks, in complete disregard as to how it will affect their lower enlisted "sisters") is inexcusable, not in the best interest of the service, and in the end, merely an unrealistic hyper-egalitarianism gone awry. One would have to deliberately ignore the obvious fact that moving women into MOS 0311 billets will result in intolerable conditions for lower enlisted women, that will then inherit the resulting lack of privacy or hygiene as required to operate for extended periods in the field, at the small unit level. These conditions will certainly not improve the already wretched statistics on sexual harassment and or assault, rather the reverse would be more likely. To stick ones head in the sand on this point is a very naive position to maintain.