Originally published in the March 2003 Marine Corps Gazette
In “The Feminine Mythtique” (Gazette on the Net, 15 May 2002), Col William T. Hewes, USMC(Ret) argues that women do not belong in combat. He presents his arguments in such a way as to suggest that they are self-evident truths, rather than debatable opinions. Indeed, we suggest that Col Hewes reproduces several myths about women and combat that require demystification.1 We challenge, in particular, Col Hewes’ claims that because combat service is not a civil right, it need not apply to women; that combat is the natural province of men, not women; and that the presence of women in mixed-gender combat units necessarily undermines unit bonding, cohesion, and performance. We also briefly address Col Hewes’ remarks regarding the effects of sexuality on bonding and unit cohesion. We conclude that arguments against the inclusion of women in combat roles (made by Col Hewes and others) ignore a solid body of scientific evidence—as well as the historical record—demonstrating women’s combat effectiveness in numerous operational contexts.
Combat Service: A Civil Right?
Col Hewes contends that the argument in favor of placing women in combat units is fatally flawed, mainly because it “presumes that the opportunity to serve in combat is a civil right.” Although it may be true that—under current U.S. federal law—military men and women do not enjoy the same civil rights as civilians and combat service does not constitute a civil right for women, neither is combat service a civil right for men. No one, man or woman, has the right to serve in the military or in a combat role until they have demonstrated that they can satisfy the requirements. However, in contrast to Col Hewes, we believe that both women and men—as full and equal citizens—should have the opportunity to serve in combat. In short, the civil rights status of combat service is equivalent for both genders, and thus, it cannot be used as a rationale for excluding women, but not men, from combat service.
Col Hewes’ position that a country’s military is not an “equal opportunity employer”—that it must be distinct from civilian society (and thus exempt from civil rights legislation)—is not inherently correct. Rather, it is a position rooted in a certain philosophy and set of values—and one that is a topic of ongoing debate. Some analysts hold, for example, that a country’s military should reflect civilian values, that it should follow civilian laws, and that it should mirror civilian demographics.2 In Canada, for instance, the military is not exempt from human rights legislation.3 Notwithstanding that the civil rights of the military may be less than those of civilians, it is a matter for debate how much less. Furthermore, different nations have handled this question differently.
War: The Natural Province of Men?
Col Hewes argues that war is nearly the exclusive province of men and that this reflects the nature of warfare itself (and implicitly, the nature of men and women). According to Col Hewes, “The physical, emotional, and social qualifications of those best suited to [the waging of war] are unarguably the forte of the male of the species.” Yet it is far from clear that this is the case. Regarding physical attributes, females are capable of a much higher level of physical performance than is generally assumed. Training can substantially improve women’s physical performance, sometimes to the point that it matches or exceeds that of men.4 Although males’ upper-body strength is on average greater than females’, women can often use their bodies in different ways from men to achieve the same result.5 Females, in fact, have physical abilities that are becoming more and more relevant to modern warfare; success and survival can now depend much more on the ability to execute rapid sequences of small motions (e.g., in tanks or fighter aircraft)—an ability in which females tend to excel—and much less on upper-body strength.6 Furthermore, the trend toward miniaturization in weaponry means that smaller bodies have become more adaptive. In short, technology has changed the nature of war to such an extent that brute physical strength is no longer as important in warfare as it once was.7
Regarding social and emotional characteristics, substantial empirical evidence suggests greater gender similarity in these areas than gender difference. Research on gender and leadership8 and gender and aggression,9 for example, indicates that women and men are much more alike than different in these areas. Where gender differences are found, they tend to be small and context-specific, not universal. Thus, although males are more aggressive than females on average, females can be just as aggressive and ferocious as men, depending on the circumstances.10 Furthermore, given the changing nature of warfare, it may be that women are more likely to possess the social and emotional qualifications needed for combat in certain contexts, such as confliction resolution skills, negotiation skills, and communications skills, than are many men.
Moreover, although warfare may be more prevalent among males, history shows that women have fought in wars in direct physical combat, and fought well. Women have fought effectively both disguised as males and openly as females, and in both single- and mixed-gender units.11 In addition to the extensive use of women in revolutionary, guerrilla, and partisan warfare (e.g., among the Eritrean rebels and the Sandinistas), women fought in the Serbian and Russian Armies in World War I (e.g., in the “Battalion of Death”), during the Russian Civil War, and for the Army of North Vietnam (and to a lesser extent, South Vietnam) in the Vietnam War.12 In World War II, hundreds of thousands of Soviet women served in combat as snipers, machinegunners, artillery women, and tank women—probably the largest case of women’s participation in direct combat in modern history.13 Throughout such wars, women’s combat experience has also included dragging wounded comrades away from the battlefield. The puzzling question is: why, even after women have skillfully and courageously fought in combat, a collective amnesia seems to sweep over nations such that women’s combat service is rendered invisible and forgotten, and women are officially excluded from direct combat in most countries in the world?
Effects of the Presence of Women on Bonding and Unit Cohesion
One of Col Hewes’ main arguments against women in combat (including combat support units and combat service support units) is his claim that women, due to their biology, are “incapable of bonding with men in a manner that contributes to unit cohesion.” In contrast, the vast majority of men, claims Col Hewes, possess a “compelling instinct to be . . . perceived by other men as being manly.” This instinct, he maintains, is demonstrated by conforming to a consensus of what constitutes manliness that is reached through the process of male bonding. Col Hewes is adamant that the existence of male bonding rituals is “exclusively a guy thing, one of the fundamental facts of life that can no more be behaviorally modified than can a woman’s exclusive ability to bear children.”
In addition to noting the essentialist, dichotomous, and circular thinking that pervades Col Hewes’ arguments, we question his claim that bonding depends on “manliness” (an argument that de facto excludes women, who cannot possibly be manly!) or that women cannot bond with men. In making his claim, Col Hewes not only discounts the effective mixed-gender bonding that regularly occurs within police and fire departments, he completely ignores examples of successful mixed-gender bonding that has occurred, for example, among Eritrean rebels (in which 35 percent of the frontline troops were reportedly women), in Vietnam,14 and in numerous other military contexts. During DESERT STORM, for instance, the combat support units, ships, and aircrews that included women performed their missions well—even under direct fire. According to CPT Cynthia Mosley, USA, commander of a combat support company that was in the thick of the action during the ground attack into Iraq: “When the action starts, every soldier does what they’ve been trained to do—nobody cares whether you’re male or female. It’s just—can you do the job?”15 There is also evidence to suggest that mixed-gender units may perform even more effectively than single-gender units in some cases—as they did in North Vietnam and El Salvador, for example. Some American commanders of experienced mixed-gender units have noticed a similar pattern of positive dynamics: the women often work harder to gain approval, and the men work harder not to be outdone. This was apparent, for instance, in the Persian Gulf.
These experiences are also supported by studies conducted by the U.S. Army Research Institute that showed that women in combat support units did not adversely affect unit performance; by Canadian military research that showed that the assignment of women to nontraditional roles in land, air, and sea environments did not have negative impacts on operational effectiveness;16 and by Danish research that showed that women performed just as well as their male counterparts in land and sea combat roles.17 In general, research indicates that cohesion and bonding are not adversely affected by women’s presence in military groups and that men and women can work together well—especially when women are not a novelty in a unit and especially when women and men are deployed in the field.18 As Col Paul E. Roush, USMC(Ret) has stated:
Bonding requires three elements: organization for a common goal, the presence of (or potential for) danger, and a willingness to sacrifice. Not one of these is gender-specific.19
Rather, cohesion is affected by group solidarity, leadership, and the adequacy of supply and command channels, and bonding is primarily related to situation, circumstance, and environment—to a commonality of experience that is shared by everyone in the group. None of these have anything to do with gender.20 Still, the assumption that cohesion or bonding will be undermined by the presence of women in combat units persists.21
The Sexuality Issue
Col Hewes maintains that although women do not have the “innate ability” to bond with men in combat-related contexts, they do have the capacity to “couple” with them, and this, according to Col Hewes, is a significant problem in combat units such as warships. In his words, “There is no more room for sex aboard ship (or in the foxhole or ready room) than there is in the corporate office,” for (he argues) the former costs lives and the latter costs dollars. According to this logic, women should be excluded from working in corporate offices as well as combat roles. Is this ultimately what he is advocating?
Col Hewes also implicates the inability of women to bond with men as one reason for what he terms the “alleged” sexual harassment problem in the military. He attempts to make clear that he is not referring to rape, assault, or other violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but is referring to the “crude and profane verbal give-and-take [that is] traditional to life in the military”—behavior that he claims “women confuse with criminal sexual harassment.”22 Col Hewes argues that women’s inability to tolerate such behavior has a devastating effect on unit cohesion, male bonding, and the mental preparedness necessary for war, and that eventually this will drive the best men out of the military (who, he claims, are there largely because they wish to prove themselves “manly.”) Once again, however, Col Hewes’ arguments are challenged by scientific research that shows, for example, that attitudes toward women in combat tend to become more positive as more soldiers are exposed to females performing combat-related duties.23 His arguments are also challenged by the performance of 800 military women who participated in 1989 in the invasion of Panama, many of whom experienced actual combat and whose performance was praised as highly effective.24 In this conflict there was no evidence that readiness levels were compromised by women’s participation.
Col Hewes claims that the negative impact of women on unit cohesion will become evident when the U.S. Armed Forces engage in combat with a credible opponent and the “body bags start coming home.” Using graphic description—and highly emotional discourse—he argues that the casualties would have been much worse in the Korean War had the combat units included 15 percent women. Col Hewes’ prediction is pure speculation, of course. But as earlier discussed, research demonstrating the effectiveness of mixed-gender units, as well as the historical record, suggests otherwise.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Col Hewes’ arguments against women in combat can be reduced to one central theme: women do not belong in combat because they are women, not men—a circular argument if ever there was one. Both empirical research and the historical record have demonstrated women’s capabilities to function in combat environments, even under direct hostile fire. Ultimately, it may be that relatively few women will seek out, or meet, the requirements of combat service. Even if this turns out to be the case, however, it does not follow that women, as a class, should be excluded from combat service—any more than it means that men, as a class, should be excluded from “nontraditional” activities. In short, it is our view that both genders, as full and equal citizens, should have the opportunity to serve in combat if they meet the bona fide requirements for the job. To exclude women from combat is to deny women an equal opportunity to serve their country and the type of experience needed to attain senior leadership positions—as well as to deny a great deal of empirical and historical evidence demonstrating women’s combat effectiveness in numerous operational contexts.
Notes
1. Views similar to those of Col Hewes’ were published in the February 2001 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette in an article by Julie W. Sherman entitled, “Combat Duty for Women? One Woman’s Point of View,” pp. 41–42.
2. Moskos, C., J. Williams, and D. Segal, The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces After the Cold War, Oxford University Press, 1999.
3. Following legislative changes that began in 1989, when a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that women were to be fully integrated into all Canadian Forces roles, all combat roles are now open to Canadian women. Since the mid-1980s, several Western European countries have introduced similar legislation based on values such as gender equality and the philosophy that a military should reflect the broader society of which it is a part. Also, see A. Hoiberg, “Military Psychology and Women’s Role in the Military,” in G. Reuvan and D. A. Mangelsdorff (Eds.), Handbook of Military Psychology, 1991, pp. 725–739.
4. Baldi, K.A., “An Overview of Physical Fitness of Female Cadets at the Military Academies,” Military Medicine, Vol. 156(10), 1991, pp. 537–539.
5. Goldstein, J.S., War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001.
6. Also noteworthy is that, whereas women had been assumed to have a more difficult time adjusting to G forces than men, research now suggests that the structure of women’s bodies may make this task easier for women, on average, than men. Goldstein.
7. In his argument that war is the natural province of men, Col Hewes also includes the fact that women are not “immune to pregnancy” like men. Concerns about pregnancy affecting military women and unit morale, however, have been vastly overblown. Pregnancy may have a negative effect on unit morale in isolated cases, but research suggests that this is not generally the case. Also see P.J. Thomas and M.D. Thomas, “Mothers in Uniform,” in F.W. Kaslow (Ed.), The Military Family in Peace and War, Springer, New York, 1993, pp. 25–47.
8. Eagley, A.H., S.J. Karau, and M.G. Makhijani, “Gender and the Effectiveness of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117, pp. 125–145.
9. Eagley, A.H. and V.J. Steffen, “Gender and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 100, pp. 309–330.
10. Goldstein.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid. Also see E. Hancock, “Women as Killers and Killing Women: The Implications of Gender-Neutral Armed Forces,” M. Evans and A. Ryan (Eds.), The Human Face of Warfare: Killing, Fear and Chaos in Battle, Allen & Unwin, pp. 159–176.
13. Goldstein.
14. Thomas and Thomas.
15. This example also makes clear that in modern warfare it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish direct combat from combat “support” roles. Thus, even in the modern U.S. military, women have served in direct combat— if unofficially.
16. Hoiberg.
17. Goldstein.
18. Ibid. 19. Thomas and Thomas, p. 40.
20. Goldstein and Hoiberg.
21. Wilson, J., “First Female Green Beret Still Can’t Be a Marine,” The Globe and Mail, 1 June 2002.
22. It would seem that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of the United States also “confuses” such behavior with sexual harassment. According to the EEOC, which provides legal definitions of sexual harassment, behaviors such as sexual jokes, teasing, remarks, and gestures—behaviors that Col Hewes claims simply require a “robust sense of humor and a tough skin” and are central to bonding—fall into the “hostile work environment” category of sexual harassment.
23. Hodson, S.E. and J.S. Salter, “Attitudes Towards the Combat-Related Employment of Women,” Australian Army Psychological Research Unit Report AR–009–044.
24. Hoiberg.
Editor’s Note: This article reflects the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of DRDC.
The Marine Corps Association & Foundation remembers the past and honors the present. Review the first one hundred years of MCA via historical photos and film clips of the organization that serves the men and women of the Marine Corps. Click 
Comments
Women In Combat Not Necessary.
As a male combat Vietnam veteran I know that female Viet Con soldiers are responsible for the deaths of hundreds maybe even thousands of American soldiers. These women fought with just as much skill and ferociusness as did male Viet Con.All men who have had to engage female wariors through out history know that any male soldier when confronted with a well trained female opponent will end up dead if he thinks he has some advantage because hes a man. male combat veterans acknowledge that women can be as effective combat soldiers as men yet most males would argue that women should not be encouraged to be in combat not because they are any less capeable then men but because as it now is we can keep half the population from having to participate in combat. Why encourage women to have to endure the hell of combat when there is no need to do so.
True it is that Russian women proved just as effective as snipers, tank comanders and fighter pilots as men but this was of necessity to do so.If they had been able to resist the Germans without using women in combat they would have gladly done so.
In light of this I erge women not to want to be in combat not because they are not capeable but because at present we don't need to have women in combat roles as did the Russians. Combat is not something either male or female should want to engage in. Only if it can not be avoided should one engage in combat. Right now women can avoid being in combat. Lets keep it that way!
A Vested Interest in the Findings
I find it odd that a rebuttal authored by two women does nothing to explain the possibility of gender bias on the part of the people trying to refute the study.
Also, no mention is made of the empirical evidence that men react differently to women in danger than other men and are more willing to accept personal risk to secure the safety of a woman than a man, thus jeopardizing combat operations. Women also statistically suffer from PTSD at a higher rate, although it is possible men tend to underreport.
Similarly, women, being generally far weaker than men, face reduced requirements with regards to the physical demands of the military. Whatever the advancements in technology today, we have not reached the point where soldiers have the luxury of not having to haul wounded comrades to cover. I am sorry, but in a combat situation I insist the person hauling me can do fifty *real* pushups.
This brings us to the discussion of rights. One does not have the right to endanger another for the feel-good experience of being an active-combat soldier. I'm sure the families of soldiers in the above situation would be greatly comforted knowing their son or daughter died so that a young woman could feel empowered and that she was exercizing her right.
Finally, the contestation that men and women in units will not have sex is so far beyond the realm of importance in light of the above information that it borders on irrelevance.
The accusations of "circular arguments" are in reality a representation of the gender soft-ball these two female authors have been tossed. Surely even if the two authors hadn't encountered evidence of the psychological occurrences that take place when women enter the military (the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been providing us with a wealth of information), they are at a loss to explain how they neglected to account for the inadequacy of the average female with regards to the physical demands of soldiering.
It's not sexism to demand that if a man finds himself in the line of fire, the person to his right or left will be capable of pulling him to safety. I believe that is an actual right rather than some fictituous civil equal opportunity.
Dear piglet
I can do 50 pushups. In addition to that I am genetically superior to you in reading facial expression and interpreting emotion. Your odds of dying from suicide in the Military now outstrip your odds of dying in combat...much less needing to be hauled out of such a firefight (though you clearly fantasized about such a blaze of glory).
Just admit that you'd rather die of machismo and see others end their lives than entertain the concept of a diverse force able to adapt to many conditions in the field.
Those 400 firefighters that died on Sept 11 in the north tower because no one valued communication in the dept? Acceptable? Why so you can use your big arms to pull bodies out of rubble and pretend to be a hero? You'd pull the trigger in their faces to get some action before you'd see the value that adding women to a diversied force would have....basic tenet of combat idiot. Go ahead. Just be a big boy and tell the truth. You want to see a bigger body count. It's what make you feel like a man....because in reality you clearly are not.
http://www.amazon.com/102-Minutes-Unforgettable-Survive-ebook/dp/B005569...
Amazing Femme
Your words have so much truth in them. I believe men do not feel emotionally ready to fight alongside women here in the US. I am actually in the Navy and yes, I have seen grown men cry in bootcamp. I have been in the military for 12 years now and in my battalion of over 200 members, I am well respected and outshine many males on the range and physical excercises. I can do push-ups in my sleep yet this not make me a bush. I can run 5-7 miles a day. I swim like a fish and yes I can drag a 240lb body across a field. I judo, xumba and kickbox.My husband is a paratrouper and I practice flipping him all the time. I have been deployed to the Middle East 5 times and just returned in November. I am very competitive and a qualified Sharpshooter and deadly with a 50Cal.It's a females choice to fight or not. God forbid there ever was a war here in the US. How will your women, wives, mothers and daughters protect themselves? Men should not underestimate a female fighter!
Febbraro and McCann should be ashamed of themselves
Women do not belong in ground combat. Your entire article cherry picked items to support your argument, fine. Did you address the incredible double standard women already get away with currently in terms of quarters and physical standards? Did you address the incredible amount of pregnancies that cause them to miss deployment or go home early from one? Did you address the incredible amount of frat that goes on currently in theater? Or do the authors imagine that Unicorns will come down and help young males and females act professional and not be distracted in mixed gender units while in austere environments? FETs and CSTs are not useless, no value added and lots of drama added.
Here is a link to The Washington Times article that deal with the new push for Infantry and SOF roles for females in the US. It has links and paragraphs from Medical Studies done in both the US and the UK, the UK decided not to put women into combat roles due to the long term study that is liked in the article. Below the link are past studies done by the military, shows continually that females have not been made to meet the same standard but that does not matter since they are in the military due to a stated "goal" of 15% set by the individual services.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/30/army-may-train-women-for-rigor-of-front-lines/?page=all
This is from when they first started sending women to the Academies:
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993):"The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength…
An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."
Further:"The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue."In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."
From the same report:"Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:"
(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men."
(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260."(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it."
(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."
From Canada's recent "stroll" with gender integration into the combat arms:
"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1."
I doubt that the results of the Canadian trist with Female infantry will change much, why use common sense when "opportunity" and "careers" are so much more important?
Even in the Fleet Navy, the study of Damage Control gave the following results: (1990's, some of the testing is obsolete now, they used P250 Pumps in the initial test, P250s are no longer used. Stretcher carry's are something that will never go away though)
Test:
Stretcher Carry, Level-% of Females (F) who failed initially (I) and who failed after 6 months post (P) weight training: I%63 P%38
% of Males (M) who failed initially (I) and who failed after 6 months post (P) weight training: I%0 P%0
Test:
Stretcher Carry, up/down ladder-% of Females (F) who failed initially (I) and who failed after 6 months post (P) weight training: I%94 P%88
% of Males (M) who failed initially (I) and who failed after 6 months post (P) weight training: I%0 P%0
There is loads of other stuff out there too, sad that none of the mainstream journalists or radical, agenda driven Women's Studies PhD's ever seem to find this stuff? The writers who push this idea that women should be in combat never seem to use them in their articles either. Weird huh?
Go read the UK study, you can find the link via the Washington Time Article, the Military Medicine ones are easily available, read Kingsley Browns "Co-Ed Combat" then add those to the older Presidential and Army Studies and then lets just call this what it is - pure and simple BS driven by politics with no concern about the lives or safety of the men in the military or combat effectiveness. Zero concern by the individual females pushing for this except personal career advancement, those are just the kind of people I want in high position since we obviously do not have enough self-centered, career first, screw the institution GOs as it is.
Hey, I ask this all the time, so I'll ask it now. Where are all your articles pushing to raise physical standards for women the last 30+ years? Where are all your articles pushing to abolish quotas and set asdies for positions into ROTC and Academies and then the hard quotas post grad in branches just for women, such as aviation, engineering, etc....? Where are all your articles arguing for a solution to the oddly high pregnancy rates overseas (hint, they are in the 1000's) that either prevent females from deploying or get them home early? Or, should I not hold my breath for those pieces since they do not advance your agenda and still allow you guys to get special treatment and yet open up "opportunities" for you while lowering standards for everyone else.
missing question?
where are the "standards" for mental faculty to pay enough attention to make sure your buddy doesn't go on a killing spree in an Afghani village? where are the standards for communication, empathy and the ability to collaborate that are the foundation for forming a successful team? Oh I forgot. Just crotch grab and go. Count the bodies later and blame it on the enemy. Do your homework.
Not a valid point
atrocities are not gender specific, Abu Ghraib is an example. Don't try and make the claim that women express better judgement then men. That is an oversight and moral issue. You do your homework.
When will the politically
When will the politically correct Generals quit being sociologists? Most infantry Soldiers/Marines do not want women as buddies in a fire team. McCann and Febrarro site the Russian army in WWII where "hundreds of thousands" of females engaged in infantry combat; I challenge them to site "hundreds of thousands" of specifics. True, many women did engage in partisan activity in WWII as they may have done as VC in the VN war, or as irregulars in the guerrilla Latin American wars. However, to compare partisan/guerrilla irregular force volunteers with standard male infantry rifle team/squad/company is the voice of inexperience. Using the standard Canadien, British and Danish military/social experimentation results as hard data is not viable. Although they are good armies; without the US as allies where do they really stand as world powers? Read history, read about biblical times, the Spartans, the Romans, armies of WWI and II up to today; I'll bet that you will not find an administrative policy that demands or even advocates using women in infantry combat.
A little respect.
The fact is women can be just as amazing as men.
You might not want us in combat, but you can't take control of us by telling us what places we can and cannot have. That crap about risking our lives means nothing. Men risk their lives too.
We women don't need to stand behind and watch and do nothing.
We have the right to serve in our country the way we intend to not stay behind because we are different.
Women rights exist now days.
If we want to fight like men, if we train like men, shoot weapons like men, load bombs like men, and fight like a man you have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do.
You may advise me against it but you can't force me to listen to and do what you say.
As the artical ends it explains how it mostly comes down to the fact we are different, not our preformance. So are you saying a black person can't be in the marines because they are different? Somebody who is hispanic??
Of course not because it doesn't matter you're skin color if you are all equal.
It's unfair to boot somebody out because of what they look like. Which believe it or not is what we are doing here, just using gender instead of color.
Instead of deciding wheather or not women can be in the core, why don't you worry about your job and life.
I appriciate the advise against doing something you find wrong.
But telling me I can't do something such as fighting for my country and risking my life is wrong.
If I meet the standards I should be able to have full access to every course I need and have it be my choice where I go and what I do with my life.
Until I have complete proof you can deny my rights due to how I was born, something I have no givin control of I don't need to hear what you think about women, because it's sexist no matter which way you turn it.
This is just my opinion which has no intent to offend people, as I am sure your comments were not meant to offend women.
But women have these rights, to do what they want to with themselves. Please don't deprive us of them.
Respect for what?
You have no respect for the lives of the men you claim you want to fight for since you fail to understand that this is not a college outward bound course.
You have no respect for the "rights" of the men, you know, those folks who make up the other half of the world?
You talk of all this feel good, encounter group silliness about your rights, that men are somehow "holding" you back yet give no thought to the reality that this is combat, not a quota system.
Look, I am sorry you did not get born with the same physical abilities as a man. I am sorry you cannot accept that sometimes nature plays cruel jokes on us physically despite our personal desires. I would ask though that you at least try to understand that the "I am woman, hear me roar" silliness you posted has about as much logic in it as 99% of men saying that the NFL will not hold me back. Here, let me try it and see if it works-
The fact is "I" can be just as amazing as Tom Brady
You might not want me in the NFL, but you can't take control of me by telling me what places I can and cannot have in the lineup. That crap about risking my life means nothing. Other people risk their lives too.
We men who don't play Pro Football don't need to stand behind and watch and do nothing in our homes on Sunday.
We have the right to serve in our NFL Team of choice the way we intend to not stay behind because we are different.
My rights exist now days. (by the way, that was your error, just retyping it)
If we want to play like Tom Brady, if we train like Tom Brady, throw balls like other NFL players, lob bombs like NFL players, and block like a NFL Player you have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do.
You may advise me against it but you can't force me to listen to and do what you say.
OK, I just kept repeating that to myself and it didn't change anything or alter the New England Patriots stance on my contract offer. How do you get that stuff to work for your reality?
I am going to end with this, the comparison you throw up of race is such a tired, old, weak and silly example to compare to women in combat I almost want to ask what year of high school you are in. A man is a man-black, white, hispanic, red, yellow, gay, whatever. Men will have more cardio capacity, upper body strength, better endurance and resistance to orthopedic injuires and we don't get pregnant.
no respect is right!
PUshups and crotch grabbing get more men killed then the skill for communication, facial expression recognition, etc etc etc. You pine for those moments of combat and the real reason you don't want women present is because you don't want anyone with the congnitive function to artfully avoid it or skillfully manage a team to move above and beyond the requirement of pushups. Pathetic.
Clearly you've no idea what combat entails
What you speak of may be applicable in COIN ops where you can drive to and fro. Certainly not the case in a straight up hick fight. Meaning, a combined arms fight against an enemy that will stand and fight. I'll remember to use "superior" communication, facial expression, and cognative function when an enemy machine gun crew opens up on me from 500 meters away. I would venture to say that most of the people on here are not qualified one way or another to mention anything about combat.
What happens when those "trained" females no longer can get the supplements, rigorous pt, calories, calcium, and protein necessary to get them to a level of fitness that equates to a mediocre male? You know, those pesky super inconvenient combat like conditions where you have to walk over treacherous terrain,for dozens of miles, carrying entirely too much crap, burning 5-6000 calories a day, on 3-4 hours of broken sleep, remaining tactically alert for signs of the enemy, digging in every time we set up an NDP and then picking it all up again in the morning, pulling OP/LP/or ambush every other or every third night,...and then after doing this for days, weeks, or months on end, close with and kill the enemy violently. I have a hard time imagining that woman sustaining her combat efficiency over that period of time.
We don't get the benefit of gyms, trainers, extra time to do more work outs, extra calories, sanitary conditions, excercises and supplements to make your bones more dense etc etc etc in combat. Men can do it without all that crap...can women? You say you want "equal" treatment...but to be in combat arms you would have to recieve exceptional treatment just to stay in. Meanwhile, the guys end up digging the fighting positions, carrying the 240 and its' ammo, carrying the mortar base plate, carrying the radio etc etc etc because after a month in active combat operations, all those super fit females that are equivalent to mediocre males have broken down to the point where they are combat ineffective and are now a liability.
Attached doesn't mean on the ground with grunts BTW. They may attend a mission occasionally but they are NEVER out on the patrols day in and day out month after month after month. Huge difference between incidental combat and sustained combat operations. Also, thinking you can "artfully" avoid combat just goes to show how much you don't know. The object of combat arms is to find the enemy, not avoid them. And thinking you'd be "better" than those of us who have massively more ground combat training AND experience than you shows that you're truly an imbecile. I'm not about to risk mine or my soldiers lives just so it can be mandated that "this % of women WILL be in combat arms so the femenists can say there is equality regardless of standards!" That's what it's going to come to...because when the women that try to join under the current standards are found to not measure up they will cry "these standards are biased" or "they're not what they think is reasonable"...then the politicians will make us revise our standards so 5 or 10 or 15% of females can pass...Then, I end up in a foxhole with someone who isn't really qualified to be there and I don't have any choice but to hope they know what the hell they're doing because OUR lives, the units life, the countries national security depends on it. Glad to know that peoples self esteem takes precedence over combat efficiency. But hell, who knows, maybe a unicorn will come and save my ass in that instance because that's about as plausible as it is for this to work for sustained combat operations.
I guess my opinion is immediately disregarded because I will be deemed a misogynist even though I have DO have experience in the topic that matters...COMBAT. REAL COMBAT...32 months worth serving as a rifleman, then team leader, then squad leader, designated marksman, and as a platoon leader. For those of you unfamiliar: lower enlisted, to NCO, to officer. Twice decorated for valor as well as a recipient of the PHM. That's my qualifying experience...what's yours again?
Too funny!
I concur. Majority of men will die from crotch grabbing before they end up as heroes in the field. More men then women will leave their buddy behind to save their own skin. Men tend to be more selfish then women...
but you are not fnny
Your making claims that have no evidence to back them up. "Men tend to be more selfish then women"...... uh, ok, because you said so. It must be true.
Don't Draft My Ass Because You Want To Fight
I will make this very short and sweet. My father was in the Navy for 30 years and fathered six daughters....none of us ever wanted to be in the military. I always feared that when women started to go into more military branches and proved their abilities that the government would eventually allow them into combat.
If women choose to go into the military and can keep up with the males without any special accomodations....then go for it. When the day comes that the government decides to draft women and cites your military accomplishments as the reason we can draft women....that is when all shit will hit the fan!
If war came to our soil.....then you will see all women helping in the fight...but don't ever think women are going to go along with any military draft. I would serve time in prison...before fighting in any of these false wars.
oh. It's all about you. Got it
THE number one case for why women can't fight....comments like yours. Have a nice time at the shopping mall. In the extremely unlikely necessity of a draft situation I hope your kids are clear that you would never stand for them.
Fight all you Want
I have not been to a mall in over 6 years you FEMALE JOCK ITCH! In regards to fighting for my children....that is what we women do best. I don't have to join the military to prove that I am WO-MAN like you do. Go bury your face in some mud and then grunt your way back to the TENT you crawled out of.
Rights
Dear Anonymous,
I certainly understand your point and appreciate your passion. I served in the Air Force for 30 years and was on the "bleeding edge" (among the initial group of women to go through navigator training and later pilot training). I felt that I should have the opportunity to compete for the privilege of flying in the Air Force.
But did I have a right to it? No. No one has a "right" to serve in the military. In fact, the contract I signed in AFROTC said that "I will accept a commission, if offered". At the time, I asked, "what is this business with if offered?". I was told that it depended on the "needs of the Air Force". It was a valuable early lesson.
It is with a great deal of thought that I have come to the conclusion that, depending on implementation, placing women in direct combat roles could have a negative impact on readiness.
Implementation is critical as I saw when "quotas" were established for women in aircraft maintenance. There was no strength requirement, and therefore we had women who couldn't lift things any maintainer would be required to lift. So with respect to direct combat, I would hope that minimum strength and endurance standards would be developed for all, keeping in mind the loads and gear to be carried, tasks to be performed, including the task of getting your injured "buddy" off of the battlefield. My guess would be that there will be few women who can meet that standard.
I also believe that there should be an evaluation of medical data collected on women vets who have performed in combat zones (and most admirably, from what I hear--I salute them!). Data collected during OIF shows that Disease and Non-Battle Injury rates within a US Army Brigade Combat Team were far higher for women than for men.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA535873
There are also studies that show that women have a greater propensity for stress fractures during Marine Corps basic training. I have also read that women with significant combat zone activity can face fertility issues.
I wouldn't want women making a commitment to direct combat without knowing her risks (but of course, when we are young, we think we are invulnerable).
In my opinion, this decision HAS to be made based on military readiness, and if women are found totally capable, implementation should be done with a great deal of care.
I am a woman...
And I do believe women can do about 99% of what men can. We are as smart, as capable as mentally strong. For sure. But I'm convinced now, after reading both sides, that women cannot be as effective in combat as men are. There, I said it, and I'm a woman! (And I have no first hand knowledge of combat or even the military. I gotta say that.)
Even if a woman could physically do exactly what a man fighter could, which must be rare but I'm sure it exist, I'd say the gender tension and the natural tendencies for men to want to take care of women, (and all those other reasons the previous posters mentioned), are reasons enough to keep women out of the combat zone.
And why is it so bad that women are different then men? I want men to be different than me. I don't want to be like a man. Like a man in combat. What kind of world would this be if everything was 50/50 equal? I don't think I'd want to be in it. Lets celebrate and respect the strength and skills that men have, (that not all women have. Maybe some, but not all) and let them fight for us. They gladly do it. How amazing is that? They are sacrificing their lives for us and our children - and other men.
There are so many other important ways, women can support the military and work in the military and really contribute. Let's excel in that and put our energy towards that.
My two cents.
women are already doing these jobs
they are "attached" and just aren't getting credit.
Agree
Ditto
A More Noble Cause
Here's a reason why women should not serve in combat that is never brought up. Yours truly is the first to bring it to your attention. You will instantly see the logic of this reason. When soldiers are trained to kill an enemy the enemy is demonized,and, vilified so that the enemy can be hated. Its much easier to kill some one who is hated.
When men who have killed men come home from combat he is not exspected to form loving relationships with the gender he just hatted enough to kill. However since the vast majority of enemy soldiers are men a female solider returning from combat must form loving relationships with the very gender she demonized, vilified and hated enough to kill on the battle field. This female soldier has been forced to surpress her natural nutrturing instincts but is exspected with the war over to return to nuturing instincts which won't be so easy.
Society needs our women to be the kind loving nuturing people nature created them to be. Why force women to supress this nuturing instinct and atleast for the duration of the war become men in women's bodies.We don't want our women to be like our men.
If killing must be done let it be done by men not because women can't be just as effective as soldiers as men are but because it is not necessary to put women into this most awful of life's situation. Besides there is plenty of opportunity for women to advance in the military without having combat experience.
Since women claim that they are better at conflict resolution than men then women should seek political office where they can use their conflict resolution talent to resolve conflicts before they become wars. This would be a far more noble cause than serving in combat and it would be even more patriotic.
Attached?
I'm searching in vain for stories of women attached to small infantry/special ops units distinguishing themselves in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. You can be attached to an infantry unit and sit next to the coffee-pot at a brigade c.p. Anyone serving in a combat zone deserves credit, but lets not confuse being exposed to combat (a largely passive exercise in survival and luck) with carrying extreme loads of equipment while stealthily closing with the enemy and brutally slaughtering them. The NFL does not prohibit women as players. The men in the NFL are not just average guys, they are exceptionally talented physical specimens. The men operating in small infantry and special ops units aren't just a cross section of schlubby guys who are there because of institutional sexism. They are the fittest human beings (men or women) for the jobs. No amount of technological advancement will ever remove the sheer, skull-cracking brutality that offensive ground troops must be capable of inflicting with bayonets and fists if necessary. Those who scoff at this as "gung-ho crotch-grabbing" simply expose themselves as profoundly ignorant of what ground combat entails versus service in a combat zone.
end discrimination
Women should be integrated into combat units, and the process needs to start in boot camp and OCS. end gender separation; have the men and women share the same facilities, barracks, heads, chow halls, training, everything. There might be some sexual tension but we already experience that with our gay Marines. They will live together in the field and they need to train the same way.
So glad I'm no longer in the Corps
I knew this day would come and I am so glad I am not there to see it. I served many years in the grunts and three tours in combat. NO ONE has a RIGHT to do anything in the service. Being in the service has nothing to do with promotion opportunities, advancement or any of the other bs you people seem concerned with. It has only to do with what is most effective at winning wars and maintaining the freedom and safety of our country.
This is all a bunch of PC, socially engineering crap. Everyone knows it and it's going to happen anyway. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. You will put soldiers and Marines lives at further risk - and more importantly, you will put my grandchildrens freedom at risk, ultimately, for your selfish career goals.
Semper Fi...well, I am - what the hell are you being faithful to but yourselves? You sicken me.
This wrong
support the women in combat not be a pig women deserve the right and for u to say that we dont is rediculous
Women in combat.
I am all for women in combat. Just make sure you don't have to change the PFT anymore to make it in my beloved Marine Corp, and get a bloody haircut!
Now, STFU, and give me 25! Oh, thats right, you can't even do one! What are you a girl! How about one pull up! You remind me of 130lbs of chewed bubble gum. What is that, a yellow card in your mouth! Are you stressed out?
Women driving planes, and trucks is one thing, just stay out of my Victor units unless you can do 20 pull ups, and 100 situps. Don't forget to run three miles sometime today!
Post new comment