Twenty years ago a major debate ensued on the national stage about the role of women in the Armed Forces. The Service Chiefs at the time mostly advocated for the continued ban on women serving in combat positions. When it came to the issue of women serving in combat aviation, the prevailing argument was that women did not have the physical strength required to fly certain airframes. They speculated that women could not pull the G-forces required and would be unable to make it through the rigorous training. Nevertheless, Congress rescinded the “combat exclusion law,” and the Services opened some previously barred positions to women, including aviation and most naval ships. We have reached another time period of debate and change. Now is the time for the Marine Corps to embrace the opportunity to open more positions to women.
The basis for excluding women from ground combat positions lies in Department of Defense (DoD) policy, not in statute, thus the DoD holds the power to change the policy. From a legal perspective, DoD must simply inform Congress of any change to its existing policy. In the Marine Corps, application of the ground combat exclusion policy results in women being denied the opportunity to serve in the infantry, artillery, tanks, and assault amphibious vehicle (AAV) MOSs. Despite being only 8 percent of MOSs in the Corps, these four MOSs consist of almost 25 percent of the total positions Marines fill.1
Clear “frontlines” on the battlefield in the past 10 years have not existed, and arguably all MOSs, including those with females, will continue to be in harm’s way. In addition, new critical skills have placed many women front and center in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq causing the restrictions placed on women in traditional ground combat positions to be reassessed.
In response to the increasing suggestions to open up MOSs currently not available to women, numerous studies in the last few years have all come to the same conclusion: The DoD policy is not suited for operations in today’s wars.2 Keeping women out of direct-combat-units and combat-related specialties hurts career opportunities for women, and the restrictions on women serving in combat roles should be eliminated. The overall consensus is that women should be able to fill all roles in the military as long as they are capable and qualified for the job.3
Over the past few years the Marine Corps has tap danced around the ground combat exclusion policy by placing female Marines in assignments such as the Lioness Program and female engagement teams, effectively circumventing the outdated “collocation” policy. Most commanders in the field found the combat exclusion rule restricted combat effectiveness because a commander is legally prohibited from attaching female Marines to units that might need their skills. Furthermore, to say that females can collocate in engineer, communications, logistics, and aviation detachments but not with members of an infantry company no longer matches the needs on the ground.
Instead of fighting policy change, the Marine Corps should embrace the abolishment of the collocation policy. This would eliminate an inconsistent policy that damages a commander’s operational flexibility to assign the best Marine to any unit based on his/her skills. The Corps should open the MOSs of artillery, tanks, and AAVs to women immediately. Ironically, for the past 15 years in the Marine Corps, a female Marine can fly an F/A–18 in combat but cannot drive a tank. If collocation is no longer an issue, then there is no reason a woman could not do these jobs. Is driving a tank or an AAV more physically taxing than pulling seven Gs in a fighter jet? Twenty years ago then-Commandant Gen Alfred M. Gray, Jr., declared that removing the ban on women in the combat arms would “harm combat effectiveness and distract male Marines.”4 We see these same old arguments in recent commentaries on this topic.5 Facts simply do not support this prejudice. For example, women are fully integrated into aviation squadrons and have flown combat missions in Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM over the past 10-plus years of war lockstep with their male counterparts. None of the fears presented by the likes of Gen Gray came to fruition. Similarly, opening artillery, tanks, and AAVs to women will not cause the fear-based disruptions that skeptics predict.
The Marine Corps should be the first Service to open the infantry to women. This is arguably the most concerning step to some Marines. By opening the other three combat arms MOSs first, the Corps could use many of the lessons learned as it develops a plan for opening the infantry. The infantry is no doubt a tough profession. It is physically demanding and not everyone has what it takes, neither does everyone (male or female) want to do these jobs. The key to successfully integrating women is maintaining clear standards. However, determining those standards may take some study. Not all effective performance on the battlefield is accurately measured by being able to do 20 pullups. For example, there are stellar Marines who can score 300 on the physical fitness test (PFT), yet after 48 to 72 hours of little sleep and no food, they are rendered completely ineffective, while some women are able to endure much better in that sleep- and food-deprived environment. These types of tests in training (e.g., survival school), along with the performance of women who have fought in combat, reveal that effectiveness in harsh conditions and in ground combat is not necessarily dependent upon one’s race, background, or even gender.
Forcing the same PFT standards for all Marines regardless of gender is often an argument given in the context of the women in combat debate. The PFT is an administrative test given to Marines to measure general health and fitness. The PFT is not a unique test taken to become an infantry Marine. We don’t make a 6-foot 5-inch male Marine fit into the same height/weight standards as a 5-foot 5-inch male Marine because we recognize that there are differences in weight that will be based upon one’s height (and gender for that matter). We don’t determine that all infantry Marines have to be 6-feet tall because height doesn’t determine performance as an infantry Marine. We don’t have standards for our pilots to have to do 15 or 20 pullups because pullups don’t determine one’s ability to fly a combat aircraft. Much like the Corps’ height/weight standards, administrative measurements (like the PFT and height/weight) do not necessarily test one’s ability to perform in any given MOS.
SgtMaj David K. Devaney, the author of “Women in Combat Arms Units: We’re not culturally ready,” cites a study that has no research applicability to combat stresses and mental health for either gender. Furthermore, he attempts to extrapolate from scientific data obtained using an instrument that is more than 20 years old. What we have learned about the prevalence of depression in both men and women, as well as the impact of combat stress on both genders, has clearly changed in the last 20 years. The understanding of mental health before and after combat is evolving. There are no controlled studies that look at mental health in men or women as a precursor to combat tolerance. Recent news and medical literature is full of references that speak to the need for more mental health research with regard to combat stress. No one is arguing that women have the same physical strength as men, not even the “feminists,” but there is no evidence whatsoever at this time to connect the issue of women doing certain MOSs with mental health.
Even if one acknowledges the random stories of failed integration from 20 years ago, such as those cited by SgtMaj Devaney, the facts are that we have already successfully opened a large-scale combat arms MOS to women. We did it in Marine aviation. Clearly in the 15 years since women began flying combat aircraft, we have learned that the testimony in 1991 claiming women couldn’t fly fighter jets was inaccurate. We’ve found that it does take a great deal of strength and endurance to fly certain airframes and that, in fact, there are some women who can’t sustain the G-forces, just as there are some men who can’t. Some men get airsick while some do not. The same holds true for women. Because the standards are solidly set (such as swim qualifications in early aviation training all the way to night carrier landings at the end of a jet pilot’s training), some people will meet those standards and some will not. Success is not gender dependent. Most importantly, because the standards have been clearly articulated, the product of that training is known by all to be ready for the position and worthy of the job. If clear qualifying standards to become an infantry Marine can be determined, then even the infantry can be opened to women who qualify. Having the same training standards for everyone to make the cut in that MOS is a must.
The issue of women in combat is not going away. The current new policy opening up more assignments for women Marines is a step. However, the practice of placing a female with a combat service support MOS in combat arms battalion staffs is not full integration and should not be treated as such. Doing so is akin to claiming one has opened fighter squadrons to women by allowing them to be intelligence and maintenance officers but not pilots. In addition, the current attempt by the Marine Corps to “study” how women perform in infantry school is also flawed. The Marine Corps is allowing women to volunteer to attend infantry school, yet these volunteers will not be awarded the MOS upon successful completion of the school. The Marine Corps must, at a minimum, award the infantry MOS to these women.
We have female Marines who can do these ground combat arms MOSs. We can recruit more. The same arguments that women don’t “desire” to go into ground combat MOSs were heard 20 years ago, particularly when it came to fighter aviation.6 The most difficult thing for a young female entering the military to do is to become a U.S. Marine, and yes, (like 15 or 20 years ago) there will be some women who will be attracted by these challenges. Of all of the Services, we are fortunate enough to have the reputation to attract the brightest and the toughest-minded women into our ranks. We should be the Service that leans forward and propels these elite women into these positions first.
Let’s not dwell on the same old prejudices from 20 years ago, but let’s look at what our female Marines have done since. The Marine Corps should open the combat arms of artillery, tanks, and AAVs immediately. With a proactive opening of these three combat arms MOSs, the leadership of the Corps could ensure that solid standards are in place so the lethality of the Marine infantry is neither diminished nor compromised.
Notes:
1. Headquarters Marine Corps, U.S. Marine Corps Concepts and Programs 2011, Programs and Resources Department, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 316 and 321.
2. RAND Corporation, Assessing the Assignment Policy for Army Women, Arlington, VA, 2007.
3. Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Service 2009 and 2010 Reports, available at http://dacowits.defense.gov/Reports.
4. Senate Armed Services Committee on Manpower and Personnel Hearing, “Restrictions on Women in Combat,” 18 June 1991, available at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/18459-1.
5. Devaney, SgtMaj David K., “Women in Combat Arms Units: We’re not culturally ready,” Marine Corps Gazette, Quantico, June 2012, pp. 62–64.
6. Ibid.
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
Thanks for the insight
Major McGrath, good rebuttal, and thank you for your insight. Hopefully the Corps does this the right way and can show the rest how it should be done. Semper Fi!
Ladies Please Stop
This article is absolutely ridiculous. You talk about old arguments. How about the feminist argument. The women’s movement is over. They can do anything in this nation except combat arms jobs and male professional sports. Which is the way it should be? This is why America is still the greatest country in the world. Women should be proud and thankful for this and realize that one of the reasons they have the freedoms that they do is because of the Infantry. It is not broken and has performed in every American conflict. Why for any reason would you mess with it for selfish reasons like creating more female General Officers. I will tell you that I am an Infantry Officer in the Marine Corps that has had the experience of seeing how mixed units work both operationally and in a training environment and all of General Grey's fears are coming true. The problem is no one talks about it, especially the media. Lies are broadcasted to the world about the make believe combat performance of women. No one talks about the ridiculous amount of sexual misconduct on every MEU, the FET teams that dismantle discipline at a Combat outpost in a matter of days, and pregnancies in a combat zone. EO complaints and sexual assault are an epidemic in the USMC. The sole reason for this is that the units are integrated and no amount of leadership will stop these things from happening. I have been a grunt for 10 years and have never seen a sexual assault or an EO complaint. The infantry is much more functional and ready because we do not have to deal with the sexual problems gender integration creates.
Another thing this article brings up that is not intelligent is that we should just integrate the infantry because there are not front lines anymore. Come on man, to say we will never fight another conventional fight is absurd and also to say that women were in combat in the last 10 years is ridiculous. Combat is actively locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy not just riding in a vehicle or going on a patrol. Look at the casualty statistics from the two wars and they will echo this.
Lastly this article talks about the physical aspect and starts talking about the pft and other standards. Standards are important but being able to compete with men in certain physical events doesn’t matter. Nature is what matters. Even the strongest women have smaller hearts, weaker bones, and a skeleton that due to child birth is not built for carrying heavy loads over long periods of time(I/E a combat tour or enlistment). Our schools in the Marine Corps have a dirty little secret which is also not reported on or talked about openly. This is the percentage of women structurally injured compared to percentage of men. Many of them are in shape and want to do the task but their bodies won't let them. The soviets found this out in WWII. Once again why would we even take this chance with infantry.
In closing this social progressive crap has to stop. What is the overall goal of it. Women can do anything except the smallest number of professions in this country and this is due to nature. Not discrimination. No one questions the NFL or why we have 2 Olympic teams so why are we questioning it when it comes to national security. Ladies, please stop. You have and have had everything you want for some time. The infantry is not about social equality or fairness. It is about winning. We can't change this for selfish reasons
Part 2 in reply to the Major Article
The Washington Times Article Continued-
"Retired Army Brig. Gen. Maureen K. LeBoeuf, a helicopter pilot by training who ran the physical education department at West Point, said opponents of putting military women in new positions always raise strength and fitness issues.“The big argument is always the physical component,” Gen. LeBoeuf told The Times. “There was a time people didn’t think women could go to the academies because of the physical piece. Women have been at the academies since 1976. And they’re absolutely successful.”-XXX End of copy and paste.
Now off that last paragraph from the Retired BG who has all the integrity I would expect of someone with a vested interest, here is the information dealing exactly with what went on at the Academies in regard to physical fitness.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part: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 done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men. Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including:- 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. After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that:- using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men.- only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.- on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it.- adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.
Of course, that the standards were lowered, were allowed to be rolled into her and other females overall rankings in the class are left out of the retired BG's statement. Also skipped over are the hard quotas given to females at the academies and ROTC for jobs post graduation. It's all a joke. Nothing has changed from the 90's to now in regard to female evolution, the UK study backs that view as well. It still won't stop the people like this author from advocating for something they would never do and they only think about it in the abstract. Why think of men that way at all? It's not like the men who are in combat positions are real to her or others, they are just impediments to their agendas. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has ordered the services to update him next month on how women performed in the new jobs and on efforts to develop "gender-neutral physical standards" with an aim toward opening still more positions to women.Lastly, here is what kind of integrity the brass and political leaders have in regard to the two females not making it, they are going to lower the standards and the person from the National Women's Law Center sums it up nicely why they are really doing this-
From USA Today on the same topic 03OCT12-
"Developing gender-neutral standards raises the question of whether they would be made less strenuous. Some advocates for putting women in the infantry have suggested that the standards at the Marine officer training course may not be an accurate test of what it takes to be an infantryman.
Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law center, says the Marines should first re-evaluate the standards before putting women through the course."They're going at this backwards," Campbell says.-End of USA Today on same topic.
Strength?
During the Vietnam War the average Vietnamese man was 5 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than the average US soldier. Who won?
Audie Murphy was 5'5" and weighed just 119 lbs when he was finally allowed to enlist in the US Army. The Navy and Marines rejected him because he was "too small". He is still the most decorated soldier in the history of the US Army.
It is neither size nor strength that make a great combat soldier.
Nice cherry pick, it still matters with regard to size/strength
A woman who is 5'5" and 119lbs. will not have the strength nor VO2 max that a man has of the same weight and height. It is not just a point and you attempted to take one part of the whole piece and skip over the strength and other metrics such as injuries due to skeletal frames being different on women. So, while it was a nice try at a counter-argument, better than the majority who just say "It's my right" or "let them try" but it does not hold up under the light.
The average male is about 190lbs now, trending upwards. Hoping that stops or levels off at least.
Most of the weight on both gender averages is unfortunately fat, either way, the male has more muscle mass, VO2 max, etc...their frames are designed better to handle load bearing while females are 180 out from that. There is a load of info, go read it, if you have information of a great evolutionary leap forward that has been taken by females, share it. If you have evidence of us ever holding them to the same exact standards (not reducing the standard and calling it the same), share it. Otherwise you use an example of courage that while he is a role model in many ways does not make much of an arguement for women in infantry roles. It is great that women can be just as brave but if she cannot get their in the first place, can't get their without breaking down due to ortho injuries, cannot maintain strength and cardio minimums as easily due to being a female, etc...etc...well, it does me no good. It's like saying effort is everything, well, a guy can try as he might to fly without wings, he can exhaust himself, injure himself and still not be able to fly. Just because he keeps trying doesn't mean we should say he flew.
Rogerr
OK...who won...is south Vietnam a communist state today...well I guess that is the answer.
Too funny
So, in your view, us betraying the South Vietnamese when we promised them air support and financial support to get them to the Paris Peace Accords and got them to sign is equal to proving females should be allowed into ground combat? The first time the North tried to move enmasse south they were destroyed due in large part to US support, then Congress cut off aid and air support and the South lost, we screwed them but whatever floats your boat man.
Your example of female guerillas is supposed to do what exactly? So, someone who lives in a local village, or maybe operates in a local village area is the same as line infantry? It's like saying that since a woman got blown up by an IED that is "proves" women should be in ground combat too if that is the logic you are going to use. Maybe since a women can go to a range and shoot a gun then she should be in the infantry or SOF too? I mean, why have standards?
Or perhaps you might want to try the example of Russians in WWII, read up on it, not quite what it was made out to be, except in the air. In the spirit of all things feminist, since this is not about combat effectiveness in your view, let me say paraphrase a classic and say your comparison is about as logical as a "fish needing a bicycle".
Tell me how this makes us more combat effective?
Tell me how this is cost effective given the problems with ortho, strength and endurance needs just to get them to a male low mean?
Tell me how this is does not damage unit cohesion with the incredible amount of frat and silliness that goes on with just adding a FET/CST or any female into a ground combat unit?
Tell me what women add that is missing in ground combat?
If you can't answer these questions, honestly, then you are arguing over emotions and neglecting that the other half of the equation in this are going to be negatively effected by the lowered standards and poorer training, you know, the other half of the sexes, we call them men. Those guys get any of your concern?
Too funny
So, in your view, us betraying the South Vietnamese when we promised them air support and financial support to get them to the Paris Peace Accords and got them to sign is equal to proving females should be allowed into ground combat? The first time the North tried to move enmasse south they were destroyed due in large part to US support, then Congress cut off aid and air support and the South lost, we screwed them but whatever floats your boat man.
Your example of female guerillas is supposed to do what exactly? So, someone who lives in a local village, or maybe operates in a local village area is the same as line infantry? It's like saying that since a woman got blown up by an IED that is "proves" women should be in ground combat too if that is the logic you are going to use. Maybe since a women can go to a range and shoot a gun then she should be in the infantry or SOF too? I mean, why have standards?
Or perhaps you might want to try the example of Russians in WWII, read up on it, not quite what it was made out to be, except in the air. In the spirit of all things feminist, since this is not about combat effectiveness in your view, let me say paraphrase a classic and say your comparison is about as logical as a "fish needing a bicycle".
Tell me how this makes us more combat effective?
Tell me how this is cost effective given the problems with ortho, strength and endurance needs just to get them to a male low mean?
Tell me how this is does not damage unit cohesion with the incredible amount of frat and silliness that goes on with just adding a FET/CST or any female into a ground combat unit?
Tell me what women add that is missing in ground combat?
If you can't answer these questions, honestly, then you are arguing over emotions and neglecting that the other half of the equation in this are going to be negatively effected by the lowered standards and poorer training, you know, the other half of the sexes, we call them men. Those "guys" get any of your concern?
Keep on cheery picking
So, in your view, us betraying the South Vietnamese when we promised them air support and financial support to get them to the Paris Peace Accords and got them to sign is equal to proving females should be allowed into ground combat? The first time the North tried to move enmasse south they were destroyed due in large part to US support, then Congress cut off aid and air support and the South lost, we screwed them but whatever floats your boat man.
Your example of female guerillas is supposed to do what exactly? So, someone who lives in a local village, or maybe operates in a local village area is the same as line infantry? It's like saying that since a woman got blown up by an IED that is "proves" women should be in ground combat too if that is the logic you are going to use. Maybe since a women can go to a range and shoot a gun then she should be in the infantry or SOF too? I mean, why have standards?
Or perhaps you might want to try the example of Russians in WWII, read up on it, not quite what it was made out to be, except in the air. In the spirit of all things feminist, since this is not about combat effectiveness in your view, let me say paraphrase a classic and say your comparison is about as logical as a "fish needing a bicycle".
Tell me how this makes us more combat effective?
Tell me how this is cost effective given the problems with ortho, strength and endurance needs just to get them to a male low mean?
Tell me how this is does not damage unit cohesion with the incredible amount of frat and silliness that goes on with just adding a FET/CST or any female into a ground combat unit?
Tell me what women add that is missing in ground combat?
If you can't answer these questions, honestly, then you are arguing over emotions and neglecting that the other half of the equation in this are going to be negatively effected by the lowered standards and poorer training, you know, the other half of the sexes, we call them men. Those guys get any of your concern?
Part 1 of 2 to the Major on her article.
I would suggest the Major sell this idea to someone who cannot simply look up actual studies, the UK studies or even someone who has not done the job. The Major is apparently comparing being a pilot to being a grunt. First, I must have missed the massive air to air combat we have had in the last 3 decades. Second, I also must have missed the massive anti-air and manpads that the Iraqi's and Afghans had in either of these conflicts or to date. Third, is it safe to assume that the Major fought against the hard quotas that are given to women at the academies for entrance and for jobs post graduation? Did the Major fight harshly to do the exact same PT as her male counterparts? Has the Major come out in support of holding females responsible for getting Pregnant right before deployment or while on deployment and hence having to be evacuated from the theater? (the numbers are in the thousands) Did she support as vocally the good General Cucolo when he tried to hold men and women equally responsible for sexual frat and pregnancy while in a Combat theater? I have a feeling the answer to all of these question is a big fat no.
Please, read this article, look as just some of the studies and have the courage to go read the reports, especially from the UK and of course I would then ask you to read Kinsley Browns book on "Co-Ed Combat". You, nor any women has ever been made to meet the same standards, even in the Fleet Navy when tasked with damage control mission and given six months to work out with weights no woman passed getting a wounded man up a ladder on a stretcher. What did the Navy do? They changed the standard to a 4 man carry. It's all a joke and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that you are not the same physically, are more prone to injury, cannot handle the same endurance that a man can plus at the same time portray it like you have not been given special treatment is not a good way to start a discussion. Be honest and reasonable, you have an agenda and it is unfortunately evident in your writing.
From the Washington Times-
"In the 1990s, the British army, under political pressure to put women in traditional male jobs, adopted a “gender-free” policy with identical fitness requirements for both sexes and abandoned its “gender fair” system of separate standards.A decade later, Dr. Ian Gemmel conducted a study for the British army’s personnel center. He found that the number of women who could qualify for basic training decreased in the “gender-free” system, as more women dropped out of training because of injury, compared with the “gender fair” system of separate fitness requirements.“This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits,” Dr. Gemmel reported.In a second study, the British Defense Ministry conducted an extensive two-year assessment of women and their ability to perform routine ground combat tasks, such as lifting and carrying gear over certain distances.Its May 2002 findings, in a report titled “Women in the Armed Forces,” were not encouraging for advocates of women in combat.The study concluded that only 0.1 percent of female applicants and 1 percent of trained female soldiers “would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these roles.”“The military viewpoint was that under the conditions of a high intensity close-quarter battle, group cohesion becomes of much greater significance to team performance and, in such an environment, the consequences of failure can have far-reaching and grave consequences,” the report stated. “To admit women would, therefore, involve a risk with no gains in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it.”In 2010, the British government reviewed its policies and opted to retain the ban on women in combat.
That year, a group of U.S. Army physicians studied one brigade combat team deployed to Iraq in 2007.Their study, published in the journal Military Medicine, examined the number of soldiers who sustained a disease or noncombat injury. Of 4,122 soldiers (325 women in support roles), 1,324 had a disease or injury that forced them to miss time or be evacuated.“Females, compared with males, had a significantly increased incident-rate ratio for becoming a [disease or noncombat] casualty,” the doctors found.Of 47 female soldiers evacuated from the brigade, 35 — or 74 percent — were for “pregnancy-related issues.” Women had more than triple the evacuation rate of men.“I infer from this that women are twice as likely to suffer non-battle injuries in current specialties,” William Gregor, a professor of social sciences at the Army’s Command and Staff College, told The Times. “They will probably have a greater injury rate in heavy physical occupational specialties and the combat arms. The British experience with gender-free or neutral training standards suggests the injury rate will dramatically increase.
”Fight load and body bags" Last year, Mr. Gregor presented a lengthy paper at an armed forces seminar in Chicago that concluded:
“The physical capacity of women is significantly less than that of men and even more difficult to sustain. Women are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to performing military physical tasks because they have a significantly higher percentage of body fat and generally much lower total lean mass.”As an example, Mr. Gregor examined physical fitness test results from Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) dating back to 1992 and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers. Looking at pushups and the two-mile run, he found that only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men’s mean score.The “fight load” — the gear an infantryman carries on patrol — is 35 percent of the average man’s body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman’s weight, Mr. Gregor found.“The increased weight of the combat load combined with the high altitude in Afghanistan has placed a premium on strength and aerobic capacity and presents a significant challenge to sustaining performance in continuous operations,” Mr. Gregor said.In tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 ROTC women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men.“No training system can close this gap,” he said. “The reason men and women cannot truly be trained together is not a matter of attitude. It is physical.“The difference in male and female body composition and the components of strength and endurance training are firm obstacles to designing mutually beneficial training events.”
Absurd
Your fellow male and female service members disagree. Not to mention the history of the human race.
Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I'm not on drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in Reader's Digest, February, 1999, and is online in the Digest's archives.
She told me the following about her experiences: "I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn't. It wasn't even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries.
"They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren't allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them 'Battle Buddies.' It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn't go to the bathroom by myself."
Women are going to take on the North Korean infantry, but need protection in the ladies' room. Military policy is endlessly fascinating.
On Combat Exclusion
Amy’s argument has as its central premise the physical “sameness” of male and female performance, but in turn dismisses different physical (physical fitness test, PFT) requirements as not accurately reflecting the true indicator of combat effectiveness. Ok.
In the first instance, two very different scoring systems and thereby indicators of performance are in place for males and females who must yearly pass a physical fitness test or PFT. This duality, for those unaware, is referred to as “gender norming,” whereby performance itself is not the true measure; mutuality of effort is good enough. Promotion too is based on this score, yet it is not simply the PFT in which gender normed performance measures are used.
“Tired old concepts?” “Prejudice?” This is an utterly contemptible way for Amy to dismiss out of hand the legitimacy of very real concerns. Notions of unit effectiveness, esprit de corps, and lethality are fully deserving of her consideration, so too, the psychological motivations which underlie unit cohesion and compel men, meaning to advance, into direct combat. Winning in combat is paramount.
The interrelationship that exists in a platoon, between individual and group, is a process of melding men through shared hardship and sacrifice, not at the expense of fairness or special consideration. This idea, of course, is perhaps best expressed by Kipling himself who writes in part “for the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.” Instructive here are the notions of inter-reliance on and between the individual and group, one to the other. A unit's strength in combat is contingent on both.
Truly, equality of outcome does little to account for the reality of ground combat. Where women are integrated, standards are effectively lowered; this by way of gender norming. To argue in favor of a uniform standard, as Amy does, is duplicitous. No uniform standard would exist or similarly it would be lowered as a means of accommodation. Policy would ensure success.
To those reading my post I ask you to evaluate the trueness of the argument. For those favoring integration of women into combat units, exist purely selfish ideas of promotion and outcome - equality metrics. There exists no concern for the whole or the greater shared-impact. Yet, this begs a question, “what of the men?”
Anonymous remarks
When you have an idea you should own it. Only cowards use ANNONYMOUS when the share an idea.
By the way, this is a great article written by a person who has served on the front lines in two wars.
Beth Bronsil
Love it!
So, Beth, other than saying you agree with the author, who was not on the "front lines", make an argument and back it up. Otherwise you are just a person with a vested interest.
any thoughts on the content of the post
Hi Beth,
Thank-you for your thoughts. I don't doubt your love and friendship for Amy, but instead of attacking me would you please respond to the content of the post? Perhaps this is simply your way of discrediting my thoughts by proxy. Attack the person, personalize it and then no coherant reply needed. What are your thoughts? Please share them. Invest your passion in a well constructed reply.
Kind regards,
-
Agree!
Maj McGrath wrote a well-informed article and has the experience to back it up. Thanks to her for writing it.
Jeannette Haynie
agree, to what end?
Hi Jeannette,
I'm curious, what specificly did you like about the article? Was there an argument that struck-you as being especially cogent; physical sameness perhaps?
Kind regards,
-
What's your motivation?
In the late 1990's the Army allowed women to apply for their SAPPER Leadership course, a tough 12 week Ranger like school for their combat engineers. Initially the few women who attempted this training dropped out at a rate of over 70% but today, thanks to good preparation, they now drop out at about 55% just a little over the male dropout rate of 51% which includes Marines. There is no difference in the training standards between males and females. So much for the major’s comment that "The most difficult thing for a young female entering the military to do is to become a U.S. Marine," actually it’s much more difficult to earn the title SAPPER.
Unfortunately what the Army found is that the male SAPPERS tended to want to help the female SAPPERS when they struggled. The males felt a number of emotional attachments to the female's especially during times of mental or physical stress. Obviously this would be a problem in combat.
IF you don't think the standards have been changed
I suggest you get a sanity check. Good prep? You mean training to the tests? Good prep? Think they treat them the same way today they did in the 80's or 90's? That is just wishful thinking. Harder than Marine Basic? Post the standards up that all the females and males have to meet then. Even Ranger school has drastically changed from the 90's, it is not the same, thinking it is does not mean it is. It is like the women who say they go through a very "intensive" selection for CSTs, it is just the CA selection course rebranded and not hard. It is all window dressing and self-esteem silliness.
In All Due Respect -
I have been following these postings for two reasons:
1. I am a professional woman who was young during the early days of feminism, & the failed attempt at an equal rights ammendment.
2. My son is a USMC infantry officer.
To my fellow females, we have what we wanted!! As a woman, we have equal opportunity to any job that we are capable of doing. The physical requirements of some jobs preclude women, & rightly so.
In your article you state many things that I take as falsehoods. You say women can do ground combat arms, & denigrate the Marine Corps for their: "attempt by the Marine Corps to “study” how women perform in infantry school". Although the women "volunteers" to said infantry class were well prepared, they dropped out quickly because they could not meet the intense physical requirements. These requirements are there for a reason! Even though you think that frontlines no longer apply, you don't know that for certain. My son, as an enlisted Marine, fought in the Battle of Fallujah. For 19 days he and his fellow Marines fought on the ground without change of clothes, or any other niceties. His officer was there fighting with them. They were all physically capable of this, & of carrying a fallen comrade. They had all passed the SAME rigorous physical and mental standards.
Unless, the Marine Corps infantry class standards are lowered, the "study" will fail. So, it seems you want the standards lowered. God help us! I echo a statement from one of the above postings, "What about the men?"
It disturbs me greatly, that for selfish personal reasons (promotion), you, & other such women, might endanger the life of someone's son. If you weaken the infantry, you might even endanger national security?
One last thought, say you get your way, & women are fully integrated in the infantry, are you open to all 18 year old females registering with the Selective Service? If you are looking for "fairness" - (I really hate that word) - then this should happen. It is not fair for someone's son to be compelled to serve, but not someone's daughter! We should all be careful! I certainly hope that this country does not get what this woman wishes for.
"Front Lines" and "Experience"
Beth and Jeannette,
As much as I respect and applaud your support for Maj McGrath (who I have no doubt is speaking from the heart and out of frustration for what she personally feels is an injustice), using terms like "front lines" and "experience" as a defense or as evidence lessens your credibility and diminishes the entire argument:
1) Just because there are no "clear" front lines in today's conflicts does not mean that EVERYONE on today's battlefields are locating, closing with and destroying the enemy by fire AND maneuver or repelling the enemy's assault by fire AND CLOSE COMBAT! Today, there is roughly a 9 to 1 ratio of "support" personnel to "infantry" personnel...and the "support" role, while vital and deserving of recognition, DOES NOT close with and destroy the enemy by fire, maneuver and close combat. Support personnel enable infantry action; being able to defend yourself while withdrawing and being able to close with and destroy someone else are two drastically different things.
2) Experience in a support role is not the same as experience in infantry role (as outlined above). Any attempt to add credibility to one's position by indirect association is flawed and unnecessary. Solid ideas are solid ideas. Unfortunately, in this case, physics, physiology and psychology are solid ideas. Saying that pulling G's and pushing buttons thousands of feet above defenseless adversaries (after having a mandated 12 hours of rest in an air conditioned environment for "safety of flight" reasons) is comparable to fire and movement across an IED infested field, in 130 degree heat, while watching your best friends blown 20 feet in the air by IED explosions - seeing their legs and arms come off and hearing their screams... then, after stabilizing them and continuing to fight you eventually feel the warm spatter of a young Talib's blood and guts on your face and neck after blowing the back of his skull off with your M4 carbine (having not slept or eaten for DAYS mind you) - are not solid ideas. If you have a valid argument for or against something - make a solid argument. Don't diminish reality via ambiguity so that your fantasy sounds better and more supportable.
3) Remaining anonymous is not cowardice - it is strategic. For you, as a female, to speak out in support of another female and her position and putting your name on it is a lot different than me, and those like me (regardless of gender) to speak up against this argument/issue. When you speak up it is supportive, albeit ignorant. When I speak up it is viewed in today's society as sexist, biased, and chauvanistic - especially if I am a male, currently on active duty AND in the infantry. If I put MY name on it, I will be labeled, ostracized and I will be attacked rather than dealing with my ideas and trying to undersand my points of view. I am not writing to make a name for myself nor am I writing to demonize Maj McGrath. I am writing as someone who has FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE in close combat. I wouldn't wish that on anyone - especially my children - regardless if we are talking about my sons or my daughter. I am writing to ensure that our leaders make the most INFORMED decisions possible; decisions not based on pseudo associations or agendas. Choices have consequences. What is everyone pushing this agenda going to say when it goes horribly wrong, "I didn't know?" Ignorance doesn't apply here...there is a treasure trove of evidence out there...for all to see...and the fact that some do not like what is says is irrelevant especially when they won't be there when the bullets start flying. To send someone who is at a physiological disadvantage into a life or death contest where their very physiological skills are the only thing that they have to rely on is insane. Where are the articles that it is UNFAIR that we do not allow males who are at a physiological and psychological disadvantage into the infantry? They don't exist because we already DO that - each and every time we need to "make mission" on recruiting duty and we haven't even begun to realize the true cost of that decision (in the post draft era) in terms of blood and treasure. What do you think PTSD is?
4) This issue is not as simple as right and wrong, fair or unfair. This issue has non-linear dynamics that will generate a butterfly effect that no one can predict and that no argument that I have read or heard even comes close to quantifying. We must proceed with caution and with clarity on this issue because it is our sons and daughters that will suffer the ramifications - not someone with a pen or a keyboard.
Semper Fidelis.
To "Front Lines" and Experience"-Cheers man, cheers!
Great post, wish you would go into more about the absolute waste a lot of those support positions are and how different they are but it is a blog, I get it.
The author has about mush sense of what the ground job entails as a tiger has knowledge of what a seal does to surive in it's environment.
In reality though, the women will be pushed through, they have already lowered the standards to place them in their current positions, so why not do the same now. Basically, being a Marine, Ranger, SF, SEAL, whatever, will mean nothing since the standards by then will be so lowered and politically based that the only thing that will matter is quota slots. The author does not care, her and those who think like her are about thier "wants" and "needs". Vanity, thy name is career officer.
Infantry
Not all infantry officers agree with you. Interesting column in USNI's Proceedings this month on the same topic.
Logic?
The author's creative writing degree really pays off in this editorial. Most entertaining is the 'voice of experience'. As though combat from 5-15k feet equals scaling courtyard walls, bounding overwatches, and packing 70+lbs of combat gear on a patrol. Yeah, the last ten years of combat are really different from the Ballkans in the 90s, Somalia, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Philippines during the Spanish American War, Banana Wars, i could go on but readers of this professional journal know their military history through and through. Unfortunately it does not fit conveniently into the authors mythical thesis.
I've met Capt Kate Petronio, and she's tough, perhaps the toughest female i've met yet. She's also a leader and team player. Teamwork: work done by several associates with each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole. Sustained combat operations in Sangin, AFG during its darkest days were unsustainable for her body, and she became concerned not for herself, but the safety and efficiency of the Marines she led. Leaders, Marine Leaders especially, eat last. They accomplish their mission and look out for their Marines. The author in this instance is clearly concerned about herself, careerism, and a selfish-individualistic agenda. An agenda any passing review of military history will render irrelevant.
Has the author conducted a preventive maintenance check and service (PMCS) on a tank, AAV or M777 artillery piece? I'm sure she's mounted a .50 cal on a tripod in TBS, or onto a turrett on an M1A1, or AAVP7. Or PMCS'd/patched a tank/aav tread. How much does an M795 155mm artillery projectile weigh? Around 100lbs if you talk to any artilleryman. What is the sustained rate of fire on a gun line in a kinetic battle? You see where this is going. Individual combat skills really havent changed and continue requiring a high degree of upper body strength.
The 2 female IOC recruits dropped, within two weeks of a 2 month course. They simply lacked the upper body strength to perform basic combat skills, like scaling a wall in combat gear without the big red steps. These were tough women, but still women. This cant be ignored, and must be clearly understood by your ilk before pressing logicaly inconsistent ideas, like the above, forward.
And on logic. Feminist eschew it frequently since it interferes so much with their agenda. Very basic logic 101. I have a cup, the cup is red, therefore all cups are red. Is this a true statement? I have seen combat, it was easy, therefore all combat is easy. I dont have the time to pick out the more than one dozen examples of this inconsistent logic above, but the authors notion that 'modern' wars have no lines is the first of many reasoning flaws. There were pretty clear lines for us in Ramadi and Falluja in 2006. Op-eds like this, particularly in the MC Gazette are penned by women who themselves have never experienced combat. Rather, they've flown over it, or heard about it, and tangentially place themselves there in pieces like this. The closer women get to sustained combat, the more they tend to question this type of logic.
The bibliography on both the USNI Proceedings article "Marines or Marines*" and this one are narrow, cannot withstand academic scrutiny, and self-aggrandize. I was hoping for something informative, moreso than a DACOWITS study - an organization of 50+ year old women that promote an academic 1970s feminist view of military policy, defiant of the realities of modern combat.
So you get your way Amy. We waive combat proven standards passed onto us by our forefathers. Hard lessons of history learned in the jungles of vietnam, the shores of inchon, or the sulpuric ash of Iwo Jima. Women show up in a gun platoon, but cant sustain a rate of fire for their counterparts being overrun miles away and needing immediate suppression. Command a tank, but lack the upperbody strenght to perform remedial action on their .50cal, and watch in terror as an Anti-Tank team takes position. Have we done them a service by 'breaking glass ceilings' when we put them against the truly mysoginistic enemies of our nation who will stop at nothing to defeat us?
Brother, no idea who you are but bravo
Thank goodness, a breath of fresh air on a board that seems filled with folks who have done the job, know the reality of the "ground" and the psuedo-feminists and career obsessed military females who never met a lowered standard they did not like. Glad not all women are like the author here or on the USNI Article, some still get that the military is supposed to be about the mission and the unit before yourself. Go figure, I am sure the "Major" will make GO one day and then we will have yet another GO with all of the moral courage and integrity of a politician.
The USMC is not a social experiment
I do not understand why the good major thinks using the USMC as a social experiment is a good idea. If women should be able to anything they want fine; but we should start with getting rid of a girl/women sports teams (they can compete with the men), have only one Olympic team, no more women categories for any type of sport or event.
I will bet the Major will not be jumping up and down requesting an infantry billet. She just does not like being told she cannot do something; not that she wants to do it.
Bad Idea
What an intellectually dishonest argument. The overwheming majority of women currently in the millitary have already proven that they can't compete with men in combat roles. It's great to see that the media, politicians, and Hollywood left wing advocates get to dictate to our troops how they're allowed to feel about sharing intimate spaces with members of the opposite sex for weeks and months at a time in a combat zone when mixing the sexes in all other aspects of the military has already caused a great deal of damage. Stupid idea that will come back to haunt them should the U.S. ever have to fight a real army some day.
Bad Idea
What an intellectually dishonest argument. The overwheming majority of women currently in the millitary have already proven that they can't compete with men in combat roles. It's great to see that the media, politicians, and Hollywood left wing advocates get to dictate to our troops how they're allowed to feel about sharing intimate spaces with members of the opposite sex for weeks and months at a time in a combat zone when mixing the sexes in all other aspects of the military has already caused a great deal of damage. Stupid idea that will come back to haunt them should the U.S. ever have to fight a real army some day.
Women in Combat; a female combat veterans take.
Great points, I recently published the below article in support of women in combat. I used to disagree with this policy for all the usual reasons people rattle off, and even wrote an article about it as a cadet. My opinion changed halfway through my second deployment. This chnage is coming; the Corps cand stand to the side and pontificate while it rolls by them or they can have a say in how they implement the change. Semper Fi.
http://m.eastvalleytribune.com/mobile/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/arti...
end 'separate but equal' 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.
No wenches in the trenches
Personally I just don't like serving with bitches. The bitchiness and whining from the "female" perspective is well demonstrated here. Seen them destroy more than a few good guys for bogus sexual harassment charges. It's power trip, they want to play with the boys and can't stand to be left out of the club house. Gays, women and immigrants who don't speak English, that's your new Obama Army.
SGT X
I like your article
I like your article
Get Real
I'm sure some will disparage my remarks as those of a dinosaur with no knowledge of our "modern" Corps, but I'm going to make them anyway. I'm indeed a relic, an enlisted Marine who, because of the Vietnam war, had the opportunity to commit to commissioned service as a basic infantry officer, and then the opportunity to serve as an aviator (fixed and rotary wing). I later commanded a MWSG unit and had the pleasure of leading motor transport and engineer Marines. I lay claim to a breadth of service experience that is probably denied today's Marines.
We can add another unique experience since my mother was a MtrT Marine during WWII. To this day, I can remember her proudly proclaiming she could change the tire on a 6X6, so I deny any victorian attitude that a woman's place is behind a desk.
To the question at hand. I have no doubt that woman can serve admirably in aviation billets without restriction as a pilot. I'm sure we have progressed somewhat from the days of man-handling ordnance and maintenance related tasks in the wing where most such tasks are done in the relative safety of an air base, and know of women who serve with distinction as technicians and crew persons . However, many of those who have commented in this string have cited studies that confirm the gut feeling of those who opine women are not physiologically suited for service as infantry. Having observed the impact of extended combat and field operations of my 03 brothers and even my cannon cocker friends, I can only say that I have seen men who have been pushed by operational requirements to the point of total exhaustion even though they were far more fit than could ever be tested by the PFT or any other standard the Corps came up with. I have seen wounded men and their gear carried on their fellow Marine's shoulders and physically thrown into helicopters. I've seen tankers wielding a 10 pound sledge to straighten a damaged tank part and struggle to repair a broken tread in the field without the time to await a repair crew. In short, the physical and mental requirements of our combat forces are the result of over 230 years of experience, not some artificial impediment thrown up to preclude anyone from gaining another stripe or star.
Our Commandant has wisely opted to gather objective data on the performance of Marines, male or female, when subjected to those standards. It is idealistic to say that every Marine should have the opportunity to satisfy or fail to meet those standards if they desire, but why should a seat in the Infantry Officers Course or any other combat designated course be given to an individual who, statistically, will most likely not successfully complete the course? Should we spend the money and deny another Marine with a greater potential for success a seat just to provide a politically correct opportunity? Are we really giving an individual who has minimal potential for success an opportunity if we place them in that course, or are we setting the individual up for failure?
I reflect back on Gen. Robert Barrow's testimony before congress on this same subject. Watch it on You Tube. A true gentleman, a combat hero, and, to me, one personification of a Marine I had the opportunity to serve under. He makes arguements concerning the subject we are discussing, but his final statement is why would we want to place women in the combat arms. Since we have the men who are physically quaified to fill those billets, what purpose does assigning women to infantry billets serve? I recognize the desire of every Marine to excel and, as an ancillary benefit, be promoted to the highest grade possible; but why would any Marine be willing to jeopardize the lives of other Marines, or our Corps' reputation for excellence if the Commandant's study indicates their potential for performing to that standard is questionable?
LtCol. R. H. Quinter, USMC(Ret)
No Concept
Although the author is intelligent, her argument is subverted by the fact that she has no experience to back up her claims about inclusion of women in the infantry. So her call for the Corps to be the first to lift the exclusion has no real basis.
As far as the PFT/CFT...if you want equality without the reduction of exceptionalism of our Corps, wouldnt it be prudent to have a single, high standard for the PFT/CFT? That is, adhere to the highest standard. And as far as the "women are different physically" argument in relation to this, train harder. Thats what the men do, why cant the women?
If what you say about inclusion of women in the infantry is sincere, then wouldnt it be a better argument for your side if the women who wanted to attain the 03XX MOS were held to the same standard that the men are?
Until then, you and your ilk are just another politcal irritant wanting to fix something thats not broken so you can say "equality" is here. (Which it will never be until you meet the same standards that the men do)
No Concept
Although the author is intelligent, her argument is subverted by the fact that she has no experience to back up her claims about inclusion of women in the infantry. So her call for the Corps to be the first to lift the exclusion has no real basis.
As far as the PFT/CFT...if you want equality without the reduction of exceptionalism of our Corps, wouldnt it be prudent to have a single, high standard for the PFT/CFT? That is, adhere to the highest standard. And as far as the "women are different physically" argument in relation to this, train harder. Thats what the men do, why cant the women?
If what you say about inclusion of women in the infantry is sincere, then wouldnt it be a better argument for your side if the women who wanted to attain the 03XX MOS were held to the same standard that the men are?
Until then, you and your ilk are just another politcal irritant wanting to fix something thats not broken so you can say "equality" is here. (Which it will never be until you meet the same standards that the men do)
Let's be real here...
The Major makes a case that women are already in combat. While that may be true, it is obvious that they do not and can not perform to the same standards as their men counterparts over an extended period of time. The opinion of those who are on the ground in the infantry has been overlooked... we are the ones who knows what it takes and can see things for how it really is without all of the political correctness coming down from above.
That said, let's be real here people. I think it's great for women to serve in the military, but serving in the military and serving in combat are two separate issues here. And the fact is that women have been proven time and time again that they cannot operate on the same level of the men. Maj. McGrath's aviation experience is NOT ground combat experience plain and simple.
women can't be in the
women can't be in the military dammit!
Post new comment