Posted on 10/24/2009 7:04:34 PM PDT by Saije
Edited on 10/25/2009 6:46:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
This photograph from Afghanistan recently made rounds on the Facebook and e-mail accounts of folks whose work centers on military women's issues.
The image itself didn't surprise them. It showed four Marines resting at a makeshift patrol base, their guns and helmets propped up against the familiar dusty backdrop of an Asian battlefield. Two of the Marines seemed to be snacking. One picked at her foot.
Yes, her foot.
The four Marines were women, but the caption for the photo that ran above the fold on the front page of the New York Times...made no mention of their gender. They were identified simply as "American Marines." The braided hair and feminine features spoke for themselves.
Yet the very lack of attention given to the Marines' sex ended up drawing notice anyway. Lory Manning, a retired Navy captain, said she and her colleagues were struck by the matter-of-fact nature of the image's presentation.
"Isn't it amazing? It's just four Marines in a dugout. And nobody's pointing out that it's four female Marines," said Manning...
Speaking by phone last week from their base in southern Afghanistan, the four Marines said the generic photo caption suited them just fine.
"For most of us, there's no such thing as a female Marine," said Lance Cpl. Jordan Herald, who is from Chenoa, Ill. "We do the same things, so there's no reason to classify us any different."***
The four Marines spend most of their time stationed at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand Province, where they work alongside their male counterparts driving trucks, setting up radio communications and maintaining and building bombs and missile launchers.
Their names and ranks are Lance Cpl. Ryann Campion, Sgt. Kendra Herbst, Cpl. Kayla Boisvert and Lance Cpl. Jordan Herald. They have been in Afghanistan since spring.
yeah because theres no difference between men and women
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you didn't have to meet the same qualifications as the male Marines, sweetie.
Hence, there is such a thing as a female Marine, and she's not of the same caliber as a male strength-wise.
I'm not a big fan of Affirmative Action warriors.
During peacetime maneuvers, I want the cutest, hottest female Marine around in my foxhole. On the battlefield, I want the biggest, meanest male Marine I can find next to me.
“Hence, there is such a thing as a female Marine, and she’s not of the same caliber as a male strength-wise.
I’m not a big fan of Affirmative Action warriors.”
Are you toting an M-16 around Afghanistan right now? I’m not a big fan of armchair warriors myself.
What does what I'm doing have to do with whether they met the same standards as the guys?
Sorority of Sisters?
However, if there was a crazy taliban warlord running towards me waving his Ak47, I WOULD BE very happy TO HAVE ONE OF THOSE WOMEN MARINES within hailing distance. And when I see one of those ladies lugging her rucksack through the airport, I go right up to her and thank her for her service just like I do for the guys. May God BLESS and Keep them from harm and strengthen their hands and hearts for battle. And remember...THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS.
“What does what I’m doing have to do with whether they met the same standards as the guys?”
They’re walking the walk. Nothing in the article suggests that they are asking to be treated differently. They’re doing whatever jobs they’re assigned to do. And I’m pretty sure that they can kick your a*s (and mine as well). So show a little respect.
I will respect them for doing what they do. But they're not Marines in the traditional sense and I won't pretend they are.
They could be sitting on their asses in California criticizing those who are serving their country, but they chose to serve instead. Hats off to the ladies in uniform.
Your analogy makes no sense.
Thank you ladies, for being tough as hell and protecting us with your lives. And for those who are anti-female soldiers... their lives are at risk just as much as men and I appreciate them as much as I do the male soldiers.
High Five!
Amen Wonderama Mama!
“But they’re not Marines in the traditional sense and I won’t pretend they are.”
The traditional sense? I don’t even know what that means. Women have been serving in the US military for decades. And they get killed in a war zone just like men do. They earn those uniforms. So unless you’re willing to put one on yourself, as the man said in the movie, “I’d rather you just said thank you.”
One of my best friends was a sergeant in the marines, doing a tour of duty escorting a general over there when they came under fire, and she did her duty, including fighting off the enemy...
Sure, she’s not as strong as a man, and her job was a support type job, but in the modern way war is often fought, everywhere seems to be potential combat zones, and she had the training to do the necessary thing at the right time, and she did it, and did it like a marine.
So easy to dis people volunteering for this type of work. Instead, I praise them, male and female.
So easy to dis people volunteering for this type of work. Instead, I praise them, male and female.
Yes. And I pray for them here on Free Republic. I am so grateful for this Forum, so that we can join together in prayer for our American heroes, our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, who are on the front Lines, protecting our Freedoms.
Before people go all bonkers, understand, women are not to be in direct combat operations.
They do not go out on patrol, or actively engage the enemy, except in times of absolute need...such as self defense or overrun.
In the Army, at least (and I confirmed this several months ago), they aren’t even allowed on guard duty in a combat zone (area of hostilities).
“Before people go all bonkers, understand, women are not to be in direct combat operations...”
Like everything else in a war zone, the enemy has a say in when there’s a “direct combat operation” and women can be in the middle of it, one thing we learned from the Jessica Lynch story back in the early days of the Iraq War.
“Like everything else in a war zone, the enemy has a say in when there’s a “direct combat operation” and women can be in the middle of it, one thing we learned from the Jessica Lynch story back in the early days of the Iraq War.”
No doubt. I know firsthand. That would be self defense, just like Jessica, PFC Lori Ann Piestewa, and others, did.
Doesn’t matter if they are female or male. They volunteered when they could have chosen to do something else. I’m glad that we have men and women willing to put their lives on the line for us. Thank you.
I don’t think they should be in combat roles as their primary job but it seems they can stand their ground, kill bad guys and win battles just as well as anyone else when they need to:
http://www.sg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123092375
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16391
( I read an after action report on the MP - she didn’t have any problem personally dispatching several enemy and she showed courage and leadership in organizing her troops and pressing the offensive against the bad guys.)
There are also female F-15, F-16, and A-10 pilots, as well as Blackhawk and Kiowa pilots (read Michael Yon’s ‘Guitar Heroes’) taking the fight to the enemy every day.
To me, it's not a question of what woman are able to do. I'm am sure there are some women who are as tough as nails and can do this. To me it's a question of whether they should do it, even if they are able. I am of the opinion that they should not, but it's just my opinion. Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
Men come in all shapes, sizes and strengths. If I had to choose between my female firefighter friend who happens to be 6ft tall, late 20’s and athletically fit and a 40 yr old slightly overweight 5’7 man to pull me out of a burning building....I’ll pick the girl.
“I am of the opinion that they should not, but it’s just my opinion. Just because you can doesn’t mean that you should.”
A woman should be allowed to put her life on the line for her country just like any man. That doesn’t mean that a woman —or a man— should be given jobs in the military that they aren’t qualified for. But there are lots of things a modern military has to do to carry out its mission successfully and it’s not just about having trigger pullers. (Although it doesn’t take a lot of strength to do that.)
Just my opinion.
There are very few jobs in the military where "smaller, weaker, less violently aggressive" are selling points, in 1970 we had females in the military but they were restricted by what they could do, finance, medical, legal, etc.
A 5'7" 40 yr old man is still significantly stronger than a 6' woman.
On another note: I'm just finishing up my tour here in Afghanistan. If anybody thinks that there are girls going outside the wire to fight the Taliban, then you're on some very strong crack.
The females here work in offices and a very few of them make supply runs back and forth between major bases, which is only a few miles.
The overwhelming majority of females here in Afghanistan are on the major air bases like Bagram or Kandahar, with hair and nail salons available to them that they take full advantage of. I have seen it personally.
Don't be fooled by the GI Jane myth, it's just that - a myth.
I'm afraid you are grossly ignorant of warfighting. Yes, it doesn't take a lot of strength to actually pull a trigger.
However, it does take a lot of strength and endurance to carry around 50 lbs. of body armor, 300 + rounds of ammo, medical supplies, water, and various other warfighting gear.
Reality ain't the movies. In the movies, the good guys have only a gun and constantly fire an unlimited amount of ammo that magically gets replenished. In real life, carrying around all that ammo is exhausting.
“I’m afraid you are grossly ignorant of warfighting. Yes, it doesn’t take a lot of strength to actually pull a trigger.”
You agree that it doesn’t take a lot of strength to actually pull a trigger, which was the sum total of my statement. My statement didn’t include everything else you added. That was the point. Pulling the trigger doesn’t take a lot of strength. Other things do.
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Thank you for your service to America, FRiend!
Rifles are not guns, Colleen.
“On another note: I’m just finishing up my tour here in Afghanistan. If anybody thinks that there are girls going outside the wire to fight the Taliban, then you’re on some very strong crack.”
I think most Americans know that woman are not assigned to combat positions. And a lot of men aren’t either.
Men AND women who serve in our armed forces shouldn’t be appreciated on the basis of whatever job they’re assigned to do. They all sign up, they go through the training, they go where they’re sent to do and do what they’re told to do. For that they deserve our respect and gratitude.
My daughter was in the Marines. She’s a good shot, but she’ll tell you her 5’2” frame can’t perform in combat like a 6’ man’s.
Just out of boot camp, she got in a ‘wrestling match’ with a 6 footer in the Army. Happily, it was all in fun, since he picked her up with one hand and tossed her across the room.
That was when she realized that size has a virtue of its own in fighting...
“Maybe their physical strength is less then their male counterparts, but their moral strength and courage more than makes up for it.”
Moral courage can’t carry a 250 lb wounded man on its shoulders. Neither can most women.
Thank you, youngbloods! Thanks to all who serve honorably - in whatever capacity.
I'm not talking about permission to do so. I, as a woman, have the ability, physical and mental to do many things, that doesn't mean I should do them. And, woman who do nothing more glorious than raise and nurture holy, moral children are putting their lives on the line for their country in a way according to their nature, in a way that men cannot.
Agreed. And why should woman try to be, except in the case of absolute necessity, bigger, stronger or more aggressive? It is working against nature instead of with nature.
If simply pulling a trigger was the only requirement for being able to fight in a war, then anybody, to include my elderly mother could fight.
The "anybody can be a trigger puller" argument just doesn't hold water in reality. There is a lot that goes into warfighting than just pulling a trigger.
Oh and my apologies for my “grossly ignorant” remark. That was a poor choice of words and it was not my intention to offend you or show any hostility.
Exactly, my mom loves to pull the trig when a wild pig is at the other end...... A battlefield is a different theater...
A pudgy, shorter man who is almost 20 years older? Don’t believe it. My friend is an Amazon, OK? She’s also the lead driver of the ladder truck. She doesn’t stay home and clean the firehouse kitchen when the call comes in. lol
There’s also alot more to war fighting than being on the front lines carrying 50lb packs everywhere. I’m grateful for every volunteer soldier regardless of what their job entails and who they are. The man on the front line carrying 50lb packs can’t do it alone and I’m sure most of them are grateful for those other folks as well.
Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the women in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raider and the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.
It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.
This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. (Don’t forget that the Soviets only did it because of the hugely staggering quantity of casualties that they suffered, on a scale that we can scarcely concieve of) That is not the case now as most personnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today’s military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.
One of the problems in assesing the impact of this issue vis-a-vis the Iraq war is the fact that we handily defeated them with the forces that were already in place in the invasion phase. Due to a combination of the skill of our superbly trained, equipped, motivated soldiers; and the ineptitude of our enemy (but they are getting better) our casualty rate has been thankfully far lower than we should have been reasonably able to expect given historical precedents. Notwithstanding this the question must be asked as to what would happen should we face an enemy that could inflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? The United States Army was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program as technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality. While we can continue to pray that we will never again face an enemy that will be able to attrite us as the German and Japanese Armies did, we MUST not plan as though it will never again happen. The Iraq war as it is presently playing out IS NO TEST OF THIS PROPOSITION.
Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG’s and .50 cal HMG’s, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted “dual physical training standards” was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. My son, a reservist in a NG chopper unit, is contemptuous of what he describes as continual coddling of female soldiers. He is planning to transfer to an infantry unit.
In situations of full mobilization, women are essential. I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.
Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and recognize them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military’s mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.
An average male can knock out anywhere from 20 - 50 pushups with no problem, while an average female struggles to do just 1 or 2.
I guess your next example will be a female bodybuilder is stronger than an 8 yr. old boy. OK fine, I'll concede that.
That is true. Almost all the females that I've seen in Afghanistan work in jobs in which they never leave the base. They work in offices or do logistics work.
I just need to say this....as the Mother of one of these Marines.....50 lbs? have you ever moved thier gear...I did!!!!!!!!! Also.....why is it that because they are Women.....doing thier jobs, that they are seen differently.....I bet if any of you were to come to the point of needing thier help it wouldn’t matter what hung between thier legs......I am so tried of the “PISSSED” off calls from over there seeing what everyone who sits back here thinks.....not knowing what is really going on......try having two family members over there....not knowing.....praying for the right phone number to show up on the caller id, praying for the call period.
These women as all of our troops have a job to do....and are doing it proudly.......
What Happened to Thank You!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????
I see so many posts from former Military.....YOU of all people shoule be backing these women!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not arguing for women to be on the frontlines or doing anything more than they are currently doing. But the broadbrush doesn't paint every picture and that is my point.
You’ll be happy to hear that the Marines now mandate that Women Marines run the 3 mile PT test as the men have had to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.