Can Women Serve In Combat?
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission is recommending that the Pentagon do away with a policy that bans women from serving in combat units, breathing new life into a debate that really should never have developed in the first place. Let’s take a look at the reasons for the current ban, and the reasons why some may be trying to lift the ban that keeps women from serving in direct combat roles.
First, Let Me Be Clear
Let me be clear in efforts to head off any “you hate women” ignorance. This article is not about whether women should be allowed to serve in the military in general. This is specifically about why I personally believe women (female or trans-gendered) should not be allowed to, forced into, pressured, or even given the option to serve in direct combat roles such as Infantry, Sniper, Special Forces, Recon, Ranger, SEAL, Combat Diver, or Delta units. In my opinion, this is a common sense issue… but to no surprise, the “well-educated” people that have done studies and compiled reports commissioned by the government seem to be incapable of utilizing a commodity such as common sense.
And trust me, I have seen many women, especially in the Marine Corps, that were highly capable, willing and able to serve in infantry and combat-related roles. There’s more to it than that. We’re turning our military into a social and civil testing organization, and that IS NOT the purpose of the United States Armed Forces.Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment. [divider]
Reasons Why Women Should Not Serve In Direct Combat Roles
Strength, equality, logistics, safety and emotions are a few main areas that I would like to discuss regarding women serving in combat roles. Let’s take a look.
Equal Rights But Not Equal Standards
This entire issues is centered around “equality.” So, let’s address this. Many times when women’s rights are fought for in the name of equality, the debate remains a one-way street. They want equality in the fact that women should be allowed to serve in the same roles as males, but the physical fitness requirements for females is a much lower standard than it is for males. This gives the military three options in the name of ‘equality.’
1) We lower the standard for males
2) We raise the standard for females
3) We maintain different standards for both genders.
Since the male physical fitness requirements are virtually impossible for the average (and even above average) female Marine to score well in, that means we’ll instead be left with lowering the male’s PFT standard… which brings me back to politics watering down the strength of our military.
In the Marine Corps, a women does a flexed arm hang, while men do pull-ups. This is because women just aren’t built to do pull-ups. Women have 31 minutes to run their 3-miles, while males must do it in 28 minutes (18 minutes is perfect). The crunches standard is the same for both males and females (50 minimum). Even with the new pull-up standard that the Marine Corps is trying to implement, the standard is still unequal. Males must do 20 pull-ups to get 100 points, while females only need to do 8 pull-ups for 100 points. Where is the equality?
So, are we going to lower the standards at which we are required to perform any job in the military… especially in the Marine Corps?
Physical Aspects: Strength & Build
Infantry jobs in the military are the muscle behind the United States Armed Forces; literally and philosophically. In the Marine Corps, our infantry will travel up to 25 miles a day by foot, carrying heavy machine guns, large communications devices, and enough gear to break a donkey’s legs. I’ve personally seen the toll that these hikes can take on females during Marine Combat Training, with much less gear. Even some males struggle with this. A 5 foot female trying to hike at the same rate of march as a 6 foot male makes for completely insufficient progress. Anyone that has been through MCT can attest to that.
The fact is that the average female is not built with the same physical capabilities regarding strength and size as the average male, which is a good thing. One of the primary factors that makes me attracted to my wife (and why so many other men are attracted to their wives) is that she has a female figure and build. This is science, not opinion. Simply put, females are just not genetically built for combat roles. This is why the current rule of male-only infantry positions exists. It is common sense that dates back to Sun Tzu, the Spartans, and even early wars fought in the Old Testament of the Bible. Men fought those wars, not women. Same goes for Special Forces type roles such as Recon, Rangers and SEAL’s. The physical rigors required for these roles are beyond what females can handle efficiently.
Logistics: Being a Female
Infantry units are often in the field for weeks at a time; many times having to build make-shift shelters along the way. Yes, female Marines are trained in combat and field ops, but they are not meant for long-term missions or extended field tasks. It’s no secret that female hygiene requires much higher maintenance than that of a male in regards to daily, weekly, and monthly hygiene maintenance. Things like using the head (bathroom), periods, and pregnancies must all be considered.
Safety: Will Pregnant Women Serve In Combat?
If this alone isn’t enough reason for why women shouldn’t serve, then I’m not sure what is. The fact is that many women do not know right away if they are pregnant. It is very possible for a female to get pregnant, and then end up in the field before she even knew about it. Then you have a whole new set of logistical issues to tackle, and possible a new set of parameters set on females that might serve in combat roles. Think about it for a minute. Think about all of the new rules, restrictions, and paperwork that will flow from this.
Emotional Aspects: The Mind To Destroy, Break & Kill If Necessary
Due to the higher levels of estrogen found in females, it is scientifically proven that women are more emotionally imbalanced than men. This could be a major factor when you consider the fact that combat roles often include violence (even in training), harsh climates, gruesome experiences and tragedies that make even the hardest of men curl up in the fetal position. Throughout the history of the world, women have been restricted from combat roles because of this, and the only countries that currently use females in combat, like Israel, do so because of the lack of male personnel for defense. America doesn’t lack male personnel volunteering for infantry. Why leads me to the question of why they think women should serve in the first place. It’s all about politics. Politics like these do not belong in the military on any level.
Efficiency: My Final Conclusion
The questions should not be “can women serve in combat?” Instead, the question should be “should women serve in combat.” There is a big difference. In the end, the overall efficiency becomes effected and affected when you start putting large groups of females into combat-related jobs. Females serving in combat roles should be reserved for emergency uses only. The factors listed above regarding both training and actual combat need to be considered.
We must also ask ourselves – is our military in need of women serving in infantry roles? The answer is no. Men are begging to get in and serve in the infantry, so what’s the point?
It’s being said that this “equal rights” agenda is to make the “workplace for fair for females.” More fair?! Since when has our great military been about making things fair? We exist to win wars and defend a nation, not go around caving to every civil rights group that thinks our military is no fair. Let’s all thank God for a moment that our early settlers did not have this same corrupted mentality during the Revolutionary War. America might have never existed.[divider]
The Liberal Agenda To Dismantle The U.S. Military
If you haven’t noticed recently, Americans are finding out that the easiest way to ruin a country, is to give the government more control, and let the government start fusing politics into every aspect of your life. If you want to speed up the destruction of a country, then start pulling the military apart, piece by piece. But don’t do it openly. Instead, have congress vote in a group like the Military Leadership Diversity Commission to fabricate garbage to sell to the American people about why women should now be allowed to serve in combat units, and train as infantry Marines and Soldiers.
I said they wouldn’t stop with repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), and they won’t stop with allowing women to serve in combat roles. Soon people with mental inefficiencies, handicaps, and no physical fitness standard will be allowed to serve, and it will be fought for all in the name of social justice and civil rights. And as you read this, you’re saying “that will never happen.” And as you read this… it is already happening.
This is just another piece on the political checker board. Females aren’t being ostracized in any substantial number. The limitations placed on them in regards to combat positions have long-standing, well thought out purposes. It has NOTHING to do with social justice, women’s rights, civil rights… or equality. It has everything to do with making decisions and regulations based on military efficiency.
Our military is THE most efficient, most-trusted sector of federal government in America. Leave it alone. Nothing else even comes close to be as efficient or as trusted as our military. The post office is a mess, social security is a joke, government-run healthcare (Obamacare) is a disaster, the tax code is a scam, welfare abuse, and congressional approval remains extremely low. How about we start with putting made-up committees into those sectors first?
Sprinkling in some social justice, empowering special interest groups, distorting civil rights, turning EVERYTHING into a political opportunity, growing government, buying “safety” at the cost of freedom, and “leveling the playing ground” so everyone can be a winner is nothing short of a preface for disaster, and the collapse of a nation that was born out of values that are in complete contrary to these games being played.
Anytime the government wants to transform something, they simply create a committee or a commission to “oversea” a particular area that they want changed. After a while, they create reports that they use as evidence for their social, political, security, civil rights, big government cause. Then they do what they can to convince America that the government should control our health care, fast food, guns, security, money, cars, utility bills, energy, music, education system, and the list literally goes on forever. When will we stop it?
I recently wrote an 8,000 word report on why the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy should have remained in place. Part of that report included how once DADT was repealed, the current radically liberal administration would just go after the next vertebra in our military’s structure. This time they’re doing in the name of females having “equal rights” in the military. As if women are somehow being held back because they are not allowed to serve as infantry or special forces. Women not being allowed to serve in combat units has a purpose, just like DADT had a purpose. Whether you agree with the purposes or not is another story, but both had/have legitimate reasons to remain in place.[divider]
In The Words Of An 0331 Marine Infantryman
This article regarding women serving in combat has also sparked a nice debate between a large group of Marines over at Leatherneck.com. Below is a first-hand response from an Infantry Marine regarding women or females being able to serve in combat jobs in the military. You can view the thread here.
*The below response is the original response from a registered user at Leatherneck.com. Only formatting and heading standards have been altered.
It is difficult to explain the variety of problems that would and could arise in such a situation. It’s just the culture and mentality of a line unit, a true infantry/victor unit. We’re just different from the rest, and we pride ourselves in that fact.
When I go work elsewhere on base, whether it be with CLB or in Margarita, I can’t stand working around females and look forward to getting back to Horno amongst my brothers where we don’t have to worry about the *****ing from the women or the problems they bring with them. Don’t get me wrong, they’re great to look at and take a whiff of, helps you bring your mind back to some sort of sanity, but they bring nothing but problems to a unit.
The main argument I keep hearing from their side is that this segregation hinders their advancement. What The FK?! Do they not realize that the grunts are the slowest advancing community in the entire military? The politicians and public have no business what so ever in military affairs.
The grunt community is very vulgar, in speech, actions, and thought. We have to deal with physical and mental stressors for long periods of time, continuously. We relieve stress through actions that many would consider wasteful, plainly destructive, and borderline immoral, this is how we maintain sanity in this line of work. We enjoy being away from women because this is where men act like men(far different than acting like a gentleman).
Psychological aspect of women in combat units:
No matter who you are, seeing a woman get shot down, blown the fk up, or even getting your hands bloody treating her after such, will absolutely mentally destroy a man. Blood drunk, full of rage, rampage, blood lust, whatever you wish to call it, he will kill anything he sees as a reason for her now current dire state. Either that or he’s going to freeze up full of self reflect on why he just failed as his basic job as a man to protect women from harm. Either way, a negative outcome.
The mind of women is based in emotion, for the majority. Emotion is a major factor that as soon as it creeps into a conscious mind during a firefight, is crippling. It will throw rational thought out the window, make the individual think and act more slowly, inhibit muscle memory created through training, and much more. Women are not designed to handle the mental aspect of what they will find on a battlefield, it’s nature.
Can women serve in combat? • Physical aspect:
Women cannot hike. They can’t carry the weight we carry, and what is necessary. They do not have the stamina needed to continue the fight either. One can even get in to anatomy and bone structure, biological proof that the hip design of women is not meant to carry excessive weight for any period of time beyond that of a child during pregnancy. Men are designed to do the heavy lifting as the women are designed to give birth. After the hips, the joints and back have their slight differences as well. And when women can’t carry the load, it gets distributed to the men, increasing their already heavy load and increasing the difference in weight between what the women carry compared to the men.
Can women serve in combat? • Logistical aspect:
Women require more supplies necessary to their continued existence. Men need one baby wipe a day, face/neck, arm pits, feet, balls, and we’re done. Women may be able to go a little less than a month like that, though I find that highly unlikely they will get that far, but this is the bare minimum. Now we have to deal with pads or tampons, and the cramps, fatigue, irritability, and everything else that comes with it that I should have tied in to the physical and psychological aspects as well. Women often demand separate sleeping facilities and accommodations. Is a woman really going to sht in an ammo crate over an open trench on the side of a mountain with a platoon of guys around her? Doubt it, and if she does, you’re going to have more than a handful of guys looking over for a peek even if they’ve seen this particular ax wound before, it’s a guy’s nature.
Can women serve in combat? • Basic nature aspect:
Men are here to protect and care for women, basic plain and simple. When we fail at that, it affects us, especially when it is completely avoidable. Why intentionally put our women in harms way? There is no reason. Tell those who think* they truly desire to go to combat with us that they have no idea what they are asking and wishing for. They do not want this, and if they do, give them my number because she’s my brand of crazy. Not everyone can be/have everything they want and dream about as a kid, it’s not how life works.
All men are not created equal. So why do we keep teaching and forcing this illogical fallacy upon generation after generation.
“All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “Women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly — and no doubt will keep on trying.”- RAH as Lazarus Long[divider]
The Equal Rights Cover
Equal rights debates have always gotten on my nerves simply because the argument is ALWAYS a one-way street. The “equal rights” supporter typically only fights for the rights that they view as benefits. This is another example of a special interest group doing their best to create a problem that doesn’t exists so they can implement their solution to “fix” it.
For instance, this debate is a fight to allow women the right to serve in combat as infantry. In many cases, the military chooses your job for you. Does this mean that the military will choose and force women into infantry/combat jobs, MOS’, and fields? If that’s the case, then look out very shortly for a new special interest group fighting for women to have the right to not be forced into infantry.
You see where this is going? The same place it always goes… back to the constant circle of special interest groups and bureaucratic bull crap infiltrating a smoothly running operation that isn’t broken, and doesn’t need fixed.