"Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry" Topic

"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…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

all that is b/s, they just don`t want to got shot at, they will willingly leave that job to the men.

Women walked plenty of patrols in Iraq and more women died in combat in Iraq than in all other US Wars combined.

Soviet women performed in aircraft, combat and in the partizans.

> they just don`t want to got shot at

Show me someone who does and I'll show you a nutcase…

Sexist crap.

Please note we are talking INFANTRY here.

Didn't read the article, but there are physiological reasons that a much higher proportion of women are not suitable for an assignment in the infantry than men. Period. That's not sexist--that's physical capability, just like "men can't carry babies."

That's not saying that there are no women that are capable of the physical work--but that they are rare. I'm not getting into the mental argument.

If you have a population that is rare and will require some special accommodation, in an environment that has constrained resources, you have to decide whether the resources dedicated to making the slot available for such a small population is worth the effort.

Rob

(And no, I wasn't in the infantry--I was a 1300 combat engineer--and saw plenty of grunts and the loads they were humping.)

Former Capt of Infantry USMC.

Women do not belong in the combat arms. Most men don't either.

Just go to the O course at The Basic School and see the one for the males and the one for the females. Every female who has tried the basic Infantry Officers course has washed out fairly quickly. Three tried the School of Infantry, enlisted, think 2 made it.

Do women have a role in the USMC, of course. But not in Combat arms. And sorry to use the Russians or Israel as your example is comparing apples to oranges. In WWII the Soviets were so desperate they used dogs with landmines strapped to them and kids. So did the Germans,Dutch and French. Kids in the partizans that is. So we next use kids because the Soviets did in desperation in WWII.

In our rush to be PC we throw common sense out the window to feel good about ourselves. At least this Female Marine Officer looks for the good of her Corps and Country over self. Now that is a good Marine.

"Sexist crap."

Really? I read the entire thing and saw no sexism whatsoever. It was pragmatic advice for enhancing "the mission", with the warning that "sexual equality" has no place in furthering the efficiency of the infantry….

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.

So that pretty much sums it up. Sexual assault and harassment of women is the fault of the women?

The author of that article is an idiot.

Sounds like she's trumpeting the company line of the USMC men's club. 17 nations beg to differ that women don't belong in infantry positions.

link

The US and UK are outliers, not the norm.

The maps shows that the countries where women may serve in military combat roles are mostly European. It's permitted in all Scandinavian countries, which famously have the narrowest gender gaps in the world. It's also prevalent in the Anglosphere, where it's allowed in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with the United States and the United Kingdom the last hold-outs.

Actually, I think women in combat is a great idea.

We need to have a 'disparate impact' review of the military. If 51 percent (+/- to match male-female ratio in the general population) of the military isn't female and there aren't enough volunteers, we should draft women until the 'proper' gender ratio is achieved.

Matter of fact, if the casualty ratios aren't appropriately balanced then policies should be adjusted to bring that ratio into compliance as well.

I suppose we will have to wait for technology to catch up to ensure that male service members get pregnant at the same proportions though…

P.S. Interesting that the two countries with the greatest numbers and percentages off women in combat roles in their militaries in WII, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, essentially zeroed those out after the war ended. Especially considering that the Soviet Union lost so many men that their gender ratio didn't return to 'normal' until the 60s.

But then I suppose the inherent patriarchal cultures of those countries overrode their communist gender equality policies. Couldn't have been due to pragmatism and experience.

"So that pretty much sums it up. Sexual assault and harassment of women is the fault of the women?"

Talk about twisting the author's words to fit your idea of the way the world should be.

It's a very bad idea.

So what about when we get powered body armor. Then strength doesnt matter. Are we okay with female pilots?

Women do not belong in the combat arms. Most men don't either.

I agree, think profession athlete. It's tough for a well conditioned thirty year old to hang with the younger troops.

It's called the INFANTry for a reason.

"The US and UK are outliers, not the norm."

Err, are you sure about that?

Female soldiers in the British Army go out on foot patrol, and are wounded or killed doing it.

The only arms they aren't allowed to join are infantry and the royal armoured corps.

In most armies the artillery and engineers are considered teeth arms.

Err, are you sure about that?

Female soldiers in the British Army go out on foot patrol, and are wounded or killed doing it.

The Washington Post article I provided a link to isn't saying that women in non-infantry positions do not get into dangerous situations or not get wounded in combat, but that the US and UK are virtually the only two major western European or Anglosphere countries that do not allow women in infantry positions. So that's what is meant by being outliers. Here's the last paragraph from the same Washington Post article:

In comparative, international terms, the U.S. move to allow women in combat roles is not unusual. If anything, it will make the United Kingdom's policy of keeping women off the front lines even more of an outlier than it already is.

Note that the US and UK are colored orange on the map in that article, not red.

I'm betting that females in the US armed forces have seen more combat than the entire Swedish armed forces in the last ten years.

I do not think the red and orange map has any relationship to real world events.

How many female paratroopers from Norway will be deployed to fight ISIS? US women are in Iraq right now.

Women play a big part in the US war effort.

Although it is true that Israel has women in combat roles, they make just the 3% of combat troops. As long as they are as fit as men -i.e. they pass through the same training-, why not allow them to fight for their country?

I agree Davoust & katzbalger … former US ARMY Infantry Officer, '79-'90, served in 4 Infantry Bns …

Back to my postscript – How many women are in the infantry in Jugoslavia (including the former republics) and the Soviet Union?

Citing western European countries filling up slots in the infantry, paras, SEALs, whatever as proof that women are capable of serving as combat infantry is meaningless. None of those countries to my knowledge have tested their experiment in combat.

After seeing some references to female VC and NVA 'soldiers' I have websearched for the current status of women in the Vietnamese armed forces. There was one generalized piece that spoke of women in technical branches and working on munitions. It noted in passing that 'women train with active duty units.' So yet another 'gender egalitarian' government that does not appear to feel that women in general belong in ground combat units.

Interestingly I also saw references to a major gender imbalance as a result of the wars. One way to solve that of course is my proposal to 'gender balance' the armed forces. Which brings to mind a commencement address by Robert Heinlein at Annapolis in which among other things he noted that killing off a nation's young women was a serious negative to its long term demographic survival.

"The US and UK are outliers, not the norm."

They're outliers because they see regular combat unlike the vast majority of Western military forces which do not.

I have no qualms with women in the workforce – my best managers have generally been women. But I agree with the concept of no women in infantry.

Also women in Israeli military are usually used in second line jobs like training. Only 3% of combat troops are women (mainly Caracal Batallion) and women were barred from direct combat duty until 2000.

Problem is many civilians and equal rights types see the military as just another public service career. (According to some reports, this same attitude prevails in many Western/NATO militaries thus resulting in poor-mediocre results in the field)!

There are many cultural, socialisation and physical duties that mean women aren't really suited to infantry work.

Similarly there are cultural influences that make men such awful managers! :P

Set the qualification bars at the same levels , if you pass you get to serve, no preferential or 'managed' grades ……..saw all this years ago when women were cross posted to a unit and the whole thing was managed to get the desired 'PC' results……….
Maybe set up a 'Caracal' battalion, all volunteers and predominantly female.

But I agree with the concept of no women in infantry.

If any who really knows about ground combat, especially in Western Armies it only makes common sense. If you are not blinded by being PC, N.O.W rethoric, etc. … Many times in the past women in some countries were put in combat roles out of necessity … It's funny, during Vietnam not too many wanted to be in the Infantry or even in military in general … So now what has changed ? Save for PC rethoric … The enemy is arguably much more barbaric then the VC or NVA …

Didn't read the article, but there are physiological reasons that a much higher proportion of women are not suitable for an assignment in the infantry than men. Period. That's not sexist--that's physical capability, just like "men can't carry babies."

That's not saying that there are no women that are capable of the physical work--but that they are rare.

Exactly. Infantry work is intensely physical. One female Marine officer in Afghanistan (engineers, IIRC, so not officially 'combat arms') had nearly perfect scores in the physical fitness test before her deployment (could run a 6-minute mile, 60+ crunches in 2 minutes, and flexed-arm hang for a couple minutes). By the end of that year, she as almost paralyzed due to muscle loss on her legs. Too much weight for her, and too much activity with not enough time to recover. Her Master Sergeant and another Marine would literally pick her up by the elbows to help her get up the hills.

You can't lead troops that way, in fact you're likely a hazard to your own troops!

I'm not sure how many women could be good tankers, either, as tank maintenance is intensely physical. Not as much running as the crunchies, but individual track links are at least 35lbs each, and 120mm gun rounds are ~45lbs each. But if you show me a woman that can pick up an end of a shed track or hold a main gun round at arm's reach, I'll accept that she is capable of doing the job. If you show me a woman that can hold a 120mm shell in each hand at arm's reach, I'm nominating her to be the loader!

For that matter, I'm not sure how many women can be an aircraft mechanic. The ejection seat weighs better than 50 lbs, and the mechanic needs to be able to lift the seat one-handed to safe it. But show me a woman who can do the physical labor, I will NOT have a problem with her working. Heck, I'm even willing to help her until she can do the physical work herself (call that part of training).

Female pilots or ship crew, on the other hand, no problem. Well, there are some engineering problems that would need to be addressed on subs, like male and female toilet and shower facilities. Even the big Ohio-class subs only have 4 shower stalls and 6 or 7 toilets for the 120 junior enlisted crew (senior enlisted and officers each have their own showers and toilets).

Most of us vaguely remember the flat spin accident from Top Gun. One of the few pilots able to recover from that situation was this petite female, because the G-forces on her weren't as extreme as on a 6' person.

The problem with ship crew is also physical ability. On my sub, we had an 80lb bag of all the small, miscellaneous stuff you needed up in the bridge. You need to be able to clean and jerk that bag while balancing over a ~40ft drop. One of the guys I served with wasn't able to do that (or much of anything else, either), so we punted him to the pier and out of subs entirely.

Those who have been brain washed into believing all the PC equality of the sexes are either uninformed, never had to actually do the job or don't want their country to succeed.

I have been Infantry, Airborne and U.S. Army Ranger- this stuff is really hard and life does not grade on a curve because of who you are. I have spent 30 years of my life defending our nation and though the entire time my PT scores are near maxed out it has beaten my body in more ways than I would have thougth before I walked down that road. I would not trade my time for anything but please don't think that the "normal" standards for female PT which are lower mean they have the same capability- but neither do most males.

Milestone for women: Army could admit female soldiers to Ranger School next spring.

"After 32 rejections, Lt. Della Smith-Del Rosario might finally get permission to attend the Army's grueling Ranger School.

She's been trying to get into the school – one of the military's most intense proving grounds – for years, but she's been blocked by a policy barring women from attending the two-month Ranger training course at Georgia's Fort Benning.

Friday, the Army announced that it's seeking female candidates for the spring 2015 Ranger School course. By January, the Army will announce whether it will admit female soldiers to the program…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Not surprised Tango – they will have women in every arm and branch no matter the ultimate cost…

It comes down to having that check in the appropriate box on the resume.

Am reading 'Was Were Solders Once…and Young' – in looking ahead to the final thoughts it was noted that for political reasons draftees tours were restricted to one year in country to lessen public disapproval. Tours for officers were limited to 6 months to allow more officers to upgrade their resumes with 'field command' experience.

In both instances the field effectiveness of the army was severely impacted. Green troops were constantly being rotated in to replace troops who were at the point of knowing the country and being effective in combat. The six month rotation on officers was particularly bad.

People on the sharp end will pay for the political desire for 'gender equality.'

I remember having this conversation with a fairly experienced SNCO quite a few years ago … his view was that apart from the physical question/factors , MEN would generally respond badly to their female counterparts being wounded/severely wounded/killed, and so in his humble opinion …it was as much an issue of squad/section cohesion falling apart at the worst possible moments.
ie; Men are more likely to (instinctively?) take far greater risks for their female counterparts at moments when cooler heads prevail.

…Perhaps also; Females are likely smarter and have less prolonged BS/SNAFU-tolerance than Men… not ideal qualities for grunts. Hahahaha!

Again have to agree with what many have said here, like COL Scott, capt jimmi and others … I have little idea why females want to go to RANGER School or why the US ARMY are even considering it … besides being PC, news worthy, etc. …

People on the sharp end will pay for the political desire for 'gender equality.'

Excellent point goragrad, the ones making such decisions won't be at the point of the spear …

ie; Men are more likely to (instinctively?) take far greater risks for their female counterparts at moments when cooler heads prevail.

I remember reading that when the Israelis had integrated battalions, the Israelis had troubles when a small unit (squad or platoon) of female soldiers was pinned down, the other troops were much more likely to go 'rescue' them when they would have left a unit of guys to deal with the situation themselves. As I understand it now, the Israelis have single-gender companies or battalions, because mixed-gender was less effective militarily.

Kinda hard to train against however-many tens of thousands of years instincts screaming that women in a fight need to be removed from that fight.

This is getting into psychology, but when two guys get into a physical altercation, it's generally safe to get break it up. It's actually probably better to let them fight it out, as they're more likely to become friends after the fact.

But when two women get into a fight, stand clear and send the survivor to the hospital.

That's actually written advice to teachers, especially in junior high and high school. Two boys get in a fight, break it up and send the two to the principal's office. Two girls fight, stand clear, send the survivor to the nurse. Anyone trying to break up a fight between women is likely to get mauled by both of them, and the issue between the two will not resolve itself until/unless one of them is no longer in that school (or town/city).

On an instinctual level, the only time women fight is when all the other protectors are dead. What happens when a city gets sacked? loot, rape, pillage, and if the women are 'lucky' they and their kids will survive. So there are no holds barred when a woman fights. Provoke Mama Bear at your own risk, because she will not rest until the threat to her and her cubs has been exterminated.

Don't be fooled by all of the rhetoric about females being "qualified" for Combat Arms duty…this is all politically motivated and driven by Feminist types who want more and more power for women.

Traditionally all the top command positions,ie Chairman of Joint Chiefs, Army Chief of Staff, Commandant of the USMC, etc. all come from the Combat Arms. You are not going to see a Signal, Quartermaster or Ordnance officer as Army Chief of Staff any time soon, and the feminists realize this…sooo we must open up Combat Arms to women all in the name of equality. They won't admit the real reason but it's there for all to see if you pay attention.

Remember, increasingly large numbers of women weren't accepted into the US military until the draft was ended and the supply of male volunteers didn't meet the required numbers. What was the military to do? They couldn't just close up shop, so they HAD to take more females just to stay in existence. I've never seen any evidence that the driving force behind recruiting more females was to increase the military's war fighting capability, it was simply to maintain troop levels.

And as this is a political issue and not a military one females WILL be integrated into ALL areas of the military in the not too distant future. All necessary studies and experiments will be conducted(successfully)and the standards will be adjusted accordingly to ensure female success…just like they have done up till now.

I have to agree MP …

Legion – you can't possibly fathom why a woman would want to prove herself by becoming a ranger?

Most things in life are done because someone says "it can't be done".

The problem Weasel is that by changing the criteria to get the desired result nothing is 'proven.'

Aside of course from the fact that with enough external pressure anything can be accomplished.

Now the women who are attempting to become Rangers and combat infantrymen may not also be among those who are getting the standards changed. But they are being used to get those standards selectively applied in a manner that may cause serious problems in the future.

Then there is also the point noted above that merely passing the original qualifying course isn't the end of the matter. The person has to be able to maintain that physical and mental level for a period of months or years. Being a Ranger isn't just having passed a course and gotten some pay and uniform enhancements.

Legion – you can't possibly fathom why a woman would want to prove herself by becoming a ranger?

Weasel,

Therein lies the problem; too many people forget the military exists to kill people and break things in the most efficient manner possible. That should be the overriding concern, but increasingly it's being used as a social engineering laboratory where the focus is on certain group's "rights", "self-esteem" and the holy of holies…"equality". And the result is usually not an increased ability of the military to accomplish it's mission.

On the other hand, with the increasingly decreased standards we sure do have plenty of marginal young troops who feel really good about themselves. And isn't that what the military is really all about? Yaaaay!!(sarcastic)

Again I agree MP … Weasel, my friend … believe me … many males can't make it thru RANGER School. It's a whole bunch'a hurt many can't even come close to fathoming … Some say you make it thru RANGER School … You are born again … "HARD" … And don't even get me started on SF quals and training … There are magnitudes of Hell on Earth before you even get to combat. Some would say … that is part of the concept of such training … Like when I played football in HS, it didn't take us long to realize the training/practice was harder than the games …

Agreed Legion. I can't (at this age) make it through Ranger school, nor would I want to.
Having been a Grunt before changes your perspective – a lot. Being deployed in Iraq (Bosnia was a cake-walk) changes your opinion even more.
The Army Physical fitness test (APFT) has two standards – one for women, one for men. The women's test is a lower standard.
Just the work up at Fort Lewis before deploying washed out a lot of people, and we weren't SF…we were (and I am a) REMF

That is one thing guys "who have seen the elephant" have over just the civilains, in this case gamers. No matter how much you read, documentaries you see, etc., etc. … if you ain't been there … you really don't know "the deal" … for better or worse. Vets usually see things in a different light …

Well, there may be a good reason to have women in combat arms.

The increasing number of female soldiers taking to the front line against extremists of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) is sowing fear in their ranks that they will be denied their prize in paradise, according to Ed Royce, who chairs the US House International Relations Committee.

"These Isil soldiers apparently believed that if they were killed in battle, they went to paradise as long as they were killed by a man," he told The New York Post, citing reporters of Kurdish female fighters laughing as they repelled attacks by the extremist group.

link