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 Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.
--------snip---------
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 isn’t 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).
--------snip----------
Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s 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 doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t 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.)
FRegards,
LH
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 rate—for “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 "5’11”, 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.
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.