Men and women are different. At some point in our national discourse this reality has been lost in the din of those who cry for a false equality while refusing to acknowledge biological and social realities. As a man who swore to “support and defend the Constitution” I am prepared to die to ensure every law-abiding American citizen’s freedom to pursue his/her goals. However, every American’s freedom to pursue his/her goals does not entail equal capability to reach those goals or execute a given task.
A common refrain reads; “There are women who are strong/fast/smart/violent enough to serve in combat arms,” or more recently, “women have already been in fighter jet cockpits for years.” One: the recent historical precedent for placing women in certain occupational specialties is an illegitimate comparison to the combat arms and the infantry specifically. Two: In every people group on Earth women are the smaller/weaker/more compassionate demographic. It defies logic to purposefully integrate women into combat
arms where they would face the generally larger/stronger/more violent demographic (men) in the horror of combat. Combat is killing. And those who propose to put women in combat arms fail to consider this basic tenet of warfare: We actively strive for inequality in combat, seeking to press our strength to exploit any weakness in the enemy.
The notion that “there are no more front lines” is patently false. Some build a case for women in combat arms on the premise that they are present in convoys or patrols taking fire and striking IEDs. Such instances are not legitimate grounds for an argument, as they merely require passive presence in the battlespace. Route 1 near Camp Leatherneck is a very different place than a foot patrol in the Sangin green zone which is a very different place than 2004 Fallujah. Exposure to danger is not combat.
And what about sex? The desire is natural, mutual, essentially continual and unchanging. The truth is that "integration" erodes combat effectiveness--lowering behavioral and proficiency expectations and riddling the force with time-consuming misconduct issues. We put men and women in a position to fail, discipline them when they do, and tell commanders “this is a leadership issue.” Never mind that we have created a reality based on “how things should be,” rather than how they are. Capt Kate Petronio, author of “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal“, operated in the Upper Gereshk Valley during the summer of 2011. She served as the CEB platoon commander tasked to build a post for the Afghan force with whom I was partnered. Despite her incredible competency, professionalism and mature demeanor, she was an attractive woman in an active combat zone. Even though I’m a content and joyfully married man with six years and three sons to my marriage, IT WAS DISTRACTING!
The concern that there are “too few female General officers,” is a faulty extrapolation based on a failed assessment purported as a critical need. It is rank feminism at its most destructive, sacrificing the defensive capability of a Nation to satisfy the selfish desires of a few. Being a member of the United States military does not entitle one to anything other than the service contract and the obligations therein. All members of the Armed Forces are known as servicemembers. Any man or woman who places career desires above that of service to the Nation is a danger to all under their charge. One of the best pieces of advice we receive as brand new Second Lieutenants states, “The moment you begin to think about your career over mission accomplishment or troop welfare, get out of the Corps and allow someone with the proper mindset lead your Marines.”
The Marine Corps has no obligation to be what society thinks we should be, we exist solely to fight and win wars and during peacetime to prepare for the fighting and winning of wars. Anything that distracts us from that purpose or dilutes our ability to enact our mission must be cut from us like the cancer it is.



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
Really
You have to ruin this hysterically ludricous discussion with facts, warfighting theory, biological science and experience?
Very well said and thanks for offering the perspective of an experience infantryman. S/Fi
Cancer?
You make some interesting points, and I understand your perspective. But allow me to adjust the azimuth.
The true issue with a lack of female General Officers is because of how they are treated when they choose to have children. It's entirely possible to be a professional, effective Marine and still have a family. Men aren't looked down upon when they do, and yet I'm seen as lackluster, a slacker, not dedicated because I've gone through the inconvenience of being pregnant. That is sexism, but yes it has little to do with the "Women in Combat" argument. I agree with your point there; diversity for the sake of looking diverse is dangerous. However, you're making a significant assumption that women are purely career-focused. Being an effective leader focused on mission accomplishment and troop welfare and ensuring you are career-competitive are not mutually exclusive. I could argue many points where they are mutually beneficial.
I do take issue with being referred to as a cancer. There is room for a competent, efficient, and lethal force when individuals are utilized by their talents and within their capacity. I don't buy your "distraction" theory. You make a series of effective arguments, but then throw out a schoolboy whine. It's not a justifiable reason to alienate competent Marines. I get it; deployments are lonely. There are issues between men and women there. But the answer is not to "cut the cancer".
I don't support an across-the-board integration. I see the value in FETs. I see the strength of any Marine able to complete MOS training and apply the skills in an effective manner. To summarily dismiss a gender based on your opinions as seen through a relatively limited field of experience is short-sighted.
Cancer?
You make some interesting points, and I understand your perspective. But allow me to adjust the azimuth.
The true issue with a lack of female General Officers is because of how they are treated when they choose to have children. It's entirely possible to be a professional, effective Marine and still have a family. Men aren't looked down upon when they do, and yet I'm seen as lackluster, a slacker, not dedicated because I've gone through the inconvenience of being pregnant. That is sexism, but yes it has little to do with the "Women in Combat" argument. I agree with your point there; diversity for the sake of looking diverse is dangerous. However, you're making a significant assumption that women are purely career-focused. Being an effective leader focused on mission accomplishment and troop welfare and ensuring you are career-competitive are not mutually exclusive. I could argue many points where they are mutually beneficial.
I do take issue with being referred to as a cancer. There is room for a competent, efficient, and lethal force when individuals are utilized by their talents and within their capacity. I don't buy your "distraction" theory. You make a series of effective arguments, but then throw out a schoolboy whine. It's not a justifiable reason to alienate competent Marines. I get it; deployments are lonely. There are issues between men and women there. But the answer is not to "cut the cancer".
I don't support an across-the-board integration. I see the value in FETs. I see the strength of any Marine able to complete MOS training and apply the skills in an effective manner. To summarily dismiss a gender based on your opinions as seen through a relatively limited field of experience is short-sighted.
yes...cancer
I totally agree that women in a combat role would be more of a distraction then anything. While in afghan having the FET teams around was a big enough distraction, i dont know how i could have delt with it for much longer then the few days at a time that i had to.
yes...cancer
I totally agree that women in a combat role would be more of a distraction then anything. While in afghan having the FET teams around was a big enough distraction, i dont know how i could have delt with it for much longer then the few days at a time that i had to.
TMI
What is the purpose of mentioning your attraction to Capt. Petronio? That's completely irrelevant information and it's EXTREMELY unprofessional of you to reference her by name. You could have gotten your point across just as well by saying "During my deployment I was attracted to numerous female Marines, and I found it distracting from my mission." It's almost like you're defending yourself against something that nobody has accused you of (to my knowledge). You're also implying two things: 1) that you were rendered less combat effective by the condition of being attracted to a superior officer and that 2) this attraction and subsequent detriment to your mission was HER FAULT. Do you seriously expect people to kick women out of the room every time you experience an inconvenient sexual urge? That wouldn't happen in ANY workplace including combat. Get over yourself and take responsibility for your own actions.
Thank you
Thank you for your comments. As a female Marine Capt I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think those who fight for equal rights in a combat environment are selfish, they fail to put the needs of the Marine Corps before the needs of themselves. Combat is not equal. We are always taught to seek ways to exploit the enemy and create an unequal battlefield in our favor...so why allow the corrosion from within? The time that will now have to be invested in 'equality/integration training', sexual misconduct investigations, pregnancies, unit drama, etc. etc. etc. will take away from quality infantry training and negatively impact the comrade of a unit.
Thank You
Thank you for your comments. As a female Marine Capt I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think those who fight for equal rights in a combat environment are selfish, they fail to put the needs of the Marine Corps before the needs of themselves. Combat is not equal. We are always taught to seek ways to exploit the enemy and create an unequal battlefield in our favor...so why allow the corrosion from within? The time that will now have to be invested in 'equality/integration training', sexual misconduct investigations, pregnancies, unit drama, etc. etc. etc. will take away from quality infantry training and negatively impact the comrade of a unit
A Female Combat Veterans take
My recent oped in an Arizona paper. It is coming, and the Corps will follow the law. If it all falls to shit, then you can write an article about just how right you were. Until then, I implore you to practice patience and let evidence prove what you think it will prove. Semper Fi.
http://m.eastvalleytribune.com/mobile/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/arti...
Idiot
Shelly, you're an idiot! And a POG! Stay where you belong!
warning
soon you may be called upon to shoot americans in america ,do the only thing and refuse an illegal order
All I know is this is going
All I know is this is going to give my poor hubby (0369) a lot of headaches...
As a veteran myself, I can tell you women do not belong in the infantry. Women need to understand that there is nothing left to prove... just a country to protect. And undermining the efficacy of our ground combat forces is not the way to do it.
Women in Combat
I consider myself a “FEMINIST”, I am a strong woman, business owner, mother of two, responsible, never been on any type of “welfare”, I believe we as women are able to do just about anything we set our minds to do, but we are not MEN!
I applaud this Marine for speaking out, for being strong and not caring about the consequences she will most likely face from women who call themselves “FEMINIST”
Finding an occupation
I agree with the Commandant, that discrimination because of gender is not acceptable. If a female Marine desires to pursue a career as an infantryman, they should have that option, and prove themselves just like everyone else who competes for MOS's.
Just like the "get over it" article articulates, female physiology is undisputedly different. In the infantry, every young man measures their leaders by their physical fitness abilities. These subordinate expectations do not diminish, or compensate for age. For young Marines, its considered the absolute indicator of proficiency. Based on this fact, it would take an exceptional Marine to maintain this standard over the span of a career. Females statistically would not do well, its just the way it is. I would hope that a female would consider their career path before embarking down a road where expectations are not waiverable. Many males find that sustaining years of the physical demands required of them in the infantry is simply not achievable. To be candid, it would take an exceptional female to be an effective leader and sustain the rigors of infantry duty, and remain competative with their peers. Still, it should not be "off the table", if one chooses that career path, as long as that Marine goes in with a realistic understanding of their decision to compete in this skill set.
Personally, I could not have sustained a 30 year career if I had been assigned as a Marine Cook, or a wireman. Nothing against those skill sets, but It just would not have captured my career interest, and hence I would not have been adequately motivated to excel. Placing the right person the a compatable skill set is important for the individual, and the success of the institution. Mandating exclusion, instead of educating potentials is the key to equal status as Marines.
Leaving aside the questions
Leaving aside the questions of physical capability and unit cohesion, remember we are discussing a "policy." A policy should facilitate efficient operation of an organization. It is our policy to have age limits for military service because it is a waste of time and resources to evaluate every 50 year old who wants to be in the service. Is there an exceptional 50 year old who can perform physically? No doubt. But it does not make sense to process and evaluate each one who wants to be in the service.The same rationale applies to women in combat. Nobody has a right to be in the service or be in combat or have a military career. They may be good people, but you can't accommodate everyone.
Post new comment