 |
| Female Marines in Combat |
The lawsuit contends that this
prohibition inhibits the careers of women in the military, and violates their
right to “serve on equal footing in defense of the nation.” The further contention is that women “do not
receive credit” for their actions in combat (referring to promotion and
retention purposes). I’m not exactly
sure what this particular part means, since women can receive combat fitness
reports the same as men do, but that’s what’s on the table.
CBS News: Women Slowly Advance Into Combat Jobs
Christian Science Monitor: Women In Combat
Marine Corps Gazette: Women and Combat Can Mix
Christian Science Monitor: Women In Combat
Marine Corps Gazette: Women and Combat Can Mix
Now in recent history, there actually was an outright U.S. law against women in combat roles, that has been down-graded into a wish-washy admonition by Congress that the military must justify changing any policy to allow women in places where they have not traditionally been.
So, it seems to me that the lawsuit wrongly addresses the blame for the policy onto the Secretary of Defense, rather than on Congress. To me, this lawsuit smacks of trying to legislate from the bench, and that pisses me off a little. Congress actually controls the military, in this little democracy we have here, by writing the laws that the military must follow.
The Way We're Supposed to Change Laws In This Country (click the link to see a bill actually being put forth in the congress about women in combat)
As the title of this blog indicates, I am
probably going to hit you with my opinion.
Here it is (drum roll...): My opinion in this case is—fine, let women serve in any job within
the military, under the condition that the standards be exactly the same as
they stand now for men. There
should not be a reduction in the physical performance requirement, and there should
not be a separate physical standard for women.
Here’s where the militant feminist types get
upset. They would say that requiring
women to do the same physical tests that men do is unfair to women. To which I say, “Who cares what you think?”
This isn't about being fair. The United States Marine Corps doesn't exist
as an organization to make sure that its members get plenty of job satisfaction and opportunity for advancement. It doesn't exist to uphold the moral high
ground. It exists to win battles. Period.
Women have played a vital role in accomplishing the mission for decades. More like centuries. I do not want to downplay their contribution in any way. Women have been present on the battlefield since ancient times. Plumbing is not the most important factor in determining a person's worth in combat.
But we have to be realistic, as well. The military cannot afford to live in a make-believe world where we pretend that there is no difference between the sexes. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that there are some pretty important differences between men and women. For instance, men are 100% less likely to get pregnant than women. That's a scientific fact. Go look it up.
But we have to be realistic, as well. The military cannot afford to live in a make-believe world where we pretend that there is no difference between the sexes. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that there are some pretty important differences between men and women. For instance, men are 100% less likely to get pregnant than women. That's a scientific fact. Go look it up.
 |
| Viva la Difference |
The tendency nowadays is to equate an acknowledgement of gender differences with racism, and that is just ludicrous. It is a completely valid point to say that that the differences between an Asian man, a black man, and a white man are just superficial It's only skin deep, as they say. But the difference between a man and a woman goes all the way to the bone. It is apparent at a very early age, and it is pretty much undeniable to any honest observer.
If a woman is strong enough to do the job, exactly the same as a man, then I agree completely that it is sexual discrimination to outright bar her from performing such work. This is completely logical, right? Not only is it logical, but women are already in combat areas. They just aren't allowed in the direct combat units, like the infantry.
An article that takes a pretty drastic stand on just that point:
Why Modern Feminism is Illogical, Unnecessary, and Evil
If a woman is strong enough to do the job, exactly the same as a man, then I agree completely that it is sexual discrimination to outright bar her from performing such work. This is completely logical, right? Not only is it logical, but women are already in combat areas. They just aren't allowed in the direct combat units, like the infantry.
 |
Lioness : Female Search Teams |
 |
| Marine Officer: Women Shouldn't Be In Infantry |
shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the infantry, since they are as capable as their male counterparts; then in the next breath, they will explain that the same test cannot be used for both, as it would be unfair. Someone please explain this to me. Maybe I don’t get it because of my crude educational background. I did graduate from a junior college with the word “agricultural” in the title (true story).
 |
| Marine Lieutenant in Infantry Officer Course |
Female Lieutenants Flunk Marine Corps' Fierce Infantry Training
IN DEBATE OVER WOMEN IN COMBAT, TRUTH IS THE CASUALTY
Let’s look at another very physically-oriented occupation— professional football. There is no rule or provision keeping women out of the NFL, that I know of. It is not against any section of U.S. Code, nor is it against any state law. Yet, how many women play in the National Football League? The answer, of course, is zero. And why is that? Two reasons— #1: women, on average, tend to be smaller and weaker than men, and #2: women, on average, aren't interested in playing football. The exact same forces are at work in the military.
 |
Most women graduating from high school and
college are not daydreaming of trying to lead a bunch of smelly dudes up a
mountainside while wearing 100 pounds of gear, shitting in a hole they dug, and
going a month without a shower. Of those
that do daydream of such a thing, many cannot meet the physical demands. Many men can't either. Those with both the desire and the ability,
however—I personally have no qualms at all about allowing them opportunity. Just don't act so surprised when women don't run out in droves to take the positions.
Twenty years ago, I had a different
opinion. I used to be against gays in
the military back then too, but I changed my stance. You see, there is another factor at work
here, and it is the most powerful one of all—the self-image of the 19-25 year
old American male. We need for these
young Americans to see themselves as tough, dangerous, and bulletproof. We need our possible enemies to see them the
same way. If men from that demographic
can feel macho and manly about their job in spite of the presence of known
homosexuals, then it really won’t matter that much if they are there. And the attitudes of that demographic change over time, along with society. Such was the case with allowing homosexuals
to serve openly—it just ceased to be the huge deal it used to be. When you talk to the individual Marines at the small-unit level, they were much less concerned with the idea of homosexuals than the high-ranking leadership was. Don't get me wrong, it still caused some people to feel uncomfortable, but it didn't shatter the good order and discipline of the Marine Corps the way some thought it would.
(A little free advice: When writing about gays in the military, DO NOT do a Google image search of 'gay military.')
 |
| I can't imagine why this isn't more popular with women... |
(A little free advice: When writing about gays in the military, DO NOT do a Google image search of 'gay military.')
Maybe the same could happen with women in the
combat arms, but only if we make damn sure that we don’t water anything down
for them. Any time you try to
social-engineer like that, you invite resentment. Take a look at this paper, written by a male
Marine, as proof.
If we are going to do this, we will need to recruit some seriously bad-ass women. I know there are women who have this kind of strength. If they want to do it, then more power to them. But never get the idea that you or anyone else has the RIGHT to be in the military in whatever job you desire. You don't. You SERVE in the military, in the capacity that your nation requires, according to your aptitudes and abilities. If you lack upper body strength, whether due to your lack of testicles or just due to unfortunate genetics, then maybe the infantry isn't for you.
