Skip to comments.Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal
Posted on 11/28/2012 8:43:20 PM PST by Marie
The Marine Corps Times recently published a handful of articles in regard to opening Infantry Officer Course (IOC) to females and the possibility of integrating women into the infantry community. In mid-April the Commandant directed the integration of the first wave of female officers into IOC this summer following completion of The Basic School (TBS). This action may or may not pave the way for female Marines to serve in the infantry as the results remain to be seen. However, before the Marine Corps moves forward with this concept, should we not ask the hard questions and gain opinions of combat-experienced Marines (male and female alike) as to the purpose, the impact, and the gains from such a move? As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nations force-in-readiness or improve our national security.
Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isnt even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS).
Not once was the word lower used, but lets be honest, modifying a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called lowering the standard! The bottom line is that the enemy doesnt discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads dont get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability.
(Excerpt) Read more at mca-marines.org ...
Her insights are intelligent and her solutions are practical.
*This* is how we should view women in the military - as intelligent and capable human beings who have much to offer, but who are different than men. We must respect those differences or we will have to cope with the consequences.
She talks about how the female body cannot handle the rigors of infantry life. She talks about the damage that is done to women in these situations.
What she doesn't talk about are the long-term consequences of thousands of disabled female veterans to our nation's budget. We can't afford to intentionally break this many service members in the name of 'equality'.
I didn’t find it with a title search with the FR search engine, but I did stumble across it with a Google search.
Mods, pull it as a dupe if you want. I still think it’s an oldie, but a goodie.
This is Ubama’s sodomized, post-America military - - I would think he’ll want some kind of “affirmative action” quotas for women in combat, sooner or later. And the Ubama administration absolutely loves transexuals - - look for some transexuals coming soon to a Marine Corps base near you. Ubama wants them to be commanding officers.
Are they covered by Title IX (9 for non football fans. The NFL Taught everyone Roman numerals) too?
Relax, Marie. It doesn’t matter if it’s a duplicate post from long ago. Fact is, it’s relevant given the current thread about the two women who tried to hack the Quantico officers’ course.
Good post. (And I don’t remember seeing it here before today.)
Thanks, Lancey. That’s why I posted it.
What is wrong with a 5’11”, marathon running, woman serving in a combat unit. Perhaps not Marines, but what about regular army. My son was serving in Gulf War I with a tank unit. He said an important issue was whether a person was strong enough to lift certain heavy metal plates when doing repairs or something like that. He said some men were not strong enough either and should not serve in those units. SO far as mind is concerned, females can be as mentally tough as men. I have heard it said that men make good warriors, women make good soldiers. Also, when the Spaniards go to breed bulls for the ring, they test the cows for courage and aggressiveness before they use them for producing fighting bulls.
All of this was learnt during WWII. Soviets evaluated females in any possible combat role in a year or so they only left as hunter-killer snipers and airforce personnel (either pilots, gunners, navigators and bombardiers). These are jobs which require being tidy and accurate but not a lot of physical strengh and not about to mix with males outside a quite short mission.
AFAIK their Navy even refused to be a part of experiment (WTF woman with men on submarine?? Niet!).
I believe even Israel gave up on this foolish idea.
Do you know why the natural birth ratefor all cultures and countries is 1.04 males to 1 female? Think about the answer. Look at the situation in China, their one child policy is starving males to get married yet no females are available. Read a few books by GEORGE GILDER and get back to me. When there are no absolutes to govern society, society becomes the absolute. -—Francis Schaeffer
My idea is females have their place in military including a FEW combat roles (if they want it). But there is no place for quotas and any kind of affirmative action regarding it. The problem is feminazy can’t get apart from this crap so it might be smart to keep women away from military at all to solve a problem.
Also, when the Spaniards go to breed bulls for the ring, they test the cows for courage and aggressiveness before they use them for producing fighting bulls.
To your first point, having witnessed female cops and female firemen in action, I can tell you I've seen zero evidence for equality of the sexes. Where physical aggressiveness is called for, women simply avoid the situation.
But your second point is very promising: Seek out moms like that "511, marathon-running woman" and instead of getting them shot in Nowheristan, offer their sons college scholarships and commissions if they join the Marines. A thousand years of Spanish bull-breeders can't be wrong.
the truth was let loose quite a few years back and it had to do with those few that wanted more money that goes with higher rank and some metals aren’t given women without battle history, please correct me if I heard wrong...
The problem is they don’t compete on a level playing field....can we all say GENERDER NORMING. Fireman/women don’t have to carry the same load or run the same distance to be allowed in fire department or police department..they are gender normed. And it is a farce
I wouldn’t have any problem with that if they did not lower standards. According to the article they plan on lowering the standards to get more women to qualify.
Well I know big strong husky women who could carry me out of a foxhole, and I know skinny little men who couldn’t do that. It depends more on the person, than the gender.
The 5’11”, marathon-running woman may be mentally tough, but the odds are overwhelmingly against her being able to lift those plates... let alone drag or carry 200lbs of wounded Marine to safety when the occasion calls.
Women have an important place in our military, but it’s not in a Marine combat unit. Placing them there weakens the chain and will ultimately get themselves and others killed.
“What is wrong with a 511, marathon running, woman serving in a combat unit.”
The main point of the article is this - the few women who ARE capable of keeping up with the men cannot do it for long. There is NO woman who can do what exceptional men can do for a 20 year career.
They will break.
*My* point is that we’re going to pay a financial price for this. We’re going to have a huge population of disabled female vets that we’re going to have to take care of for life.
I had two friends who were gymnasts when they were young. One was seriously training for the olympics. (Didn’t make it, but came close.)
Both of them had serious health issues, even though they both ‘retired’ before they were 20. Both had joint issues, back and neck problems, abdominal adhesions, one had ruptured an ovary while training and lost that as a teen and on and on.
The female body can take abuse, but can’t take it for as long as a man can. We just aren’t built for it.
Just like a man just isn’t built to carry and birth a baby.
We are equal and both sexes bring something special to the table, but we are different. The refusal to accept this is damaging to our military.
Capt Katie PetronioThe idiots who are pushing this pc social experimentation should read this and take note (but they wont).
I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
an aside: This reminds me of an article I read a few years back about some female Army Officer (Ret.) who *claimed* to be the only woman to ever have been 'in the Special Forces and awarded a Green Beret'. The only tiny problem was -- she wasn't. She was fudging the facts just a tad with her version of what occurred (it was all femi-nazi BS to prove women 'are equal').
Regarding your argument that NO woman can do what exceptional men can do for a 20 year career. I am thinking back on the career of my son who is currently in Afghanistan again, with Special Forces. He is 6’1” and solidly muscular in build as were his father and myself (muscular, not tall). He is now almost finished with 18 years. He went to Gulf War I with the 82nd Airborne. They sat around (probably worked out and trained too) for almost 5 months, then the invasion of Iraq which was active. Came home in 4 months. Completed 4 years, left for several years, but was persuaded to re-enlist by his reserve commander. Worked on the Bosnia deployment readiness, attended various schools, including helicopter maintenance school for 4 months. Supervised a unit of helicopters for several years. Moved to Special Forces to be closer to home, wife and children. Did several short term assignments to various places in Europe and Africa. Spent 8 months in Afghanistan in 2006, is now there for, I presume, another 8 months. Don’t know how hard his service is when he is not combat area duty, but his other duty does not seem excessive. He has put on a bit of weight.
Thus in modern terms it does not appear that what he is doing most of the time would be impossible for a strong woman who takes care of herself. Naturally, the kind of warfare our troops faced in Europe or Asia in WWI and II for
years at a time is a different matter. Months and months in the jungle in Vietnam is also a point to consider. However, the military seems to be doing a good job of spacing service, at least for their long term career Army people. Also, I imagine there are plenty of smaller men who are not asked to do what he does occasionally.
Regarding the young gymnasts, it is dangerous to push young bodies of girls or boys as much as some are pushed to satisfy the egos of parents or coaches, or even their own overwhelming desire. It is the responsibility of the adults in their lives not to push them to the point of injury. I was 8 years older than my young siblings, and my father treated me like a boy, working in our large victory garden, lifting heavy objects, working in the cold repairing cars at the age of 6, etc. Sometimes my mother would scream at him, “don’t make her lift that, she will rupture herself.” Usually he would back down. Meanwhile I became very strong. When I entered a new school after helping move the accumulation of 12 years living in one place plus 4 tons of salvaged lumber for an addition to our new home, I was the most fit girl (age 16) out of 150 girls in gym. Tested with sit-ups, push-ups, and obstacle course run. I am now in my 70s, eat healthy food, take my vitamins and other supplements, and am full of life and interests and have no noticeable illnesses or infirmities.
The natural birth rate is higher for men because with 2% less chromosomal material (Y versus X chromosome size) they have a higher natural death rate. So far as China and India are concerned, where there is a preference for males, this is one of the points of equal opportunity in the military since many societies value warfare and militarism so much. Islamic marriage rules (4 wives if treated equal) causes the same limitation on marriage for many men. This also occurs among some Mormon subgroups. Of course these last two groups also consider women lesser creatures compared to men.
I don’t know about the cops and firepeople, but I made an interesting observation when my son was in high school ROTC. It was a large school and he was in the Ranger ROTC sub-unit. I got to know some of the other members, and it seemed to me that they all had strong, dominant (but not overbearing) mothers, which included me. I was more dominant than my husband who was not a wimp either (Korean War combat infantry officer, unarmed combat trainer), and steadier and more sure in my motivation and actions.
You missed my point.
Wrong. This is a simple question with a simple answer. You can’t see it, instead obfuscating it with nonsense.
I’m not sure what your point was. Actually while the natural birthrate is slightly higher for males, in China and India the ratio is quite a bit higher because of sex selective abortion. They do not have a “natural” birth rate sex ratio.