Posted by Tina
The President and Defense Secretary Ash Carter are strongly in favor of opening all combat units to women. But a new study, conducted by the Marine Corp, should put a damper on that ambitious (feminist) agenda:
“The Marines created a battalion of 100 female and 300 male volunteers. During the past year, they trained in North Carolina and California, taking part in realistic combat exercises.
“All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries.
Needless to say blow back in some quarters has been negative, even questioning the integrity of the Marines. The current administration is not interested in what the policy might mean in terms of injuries, performance, or deaths. The military to them is just another social platform. It should not be!
The Marine report follows news from a couple of weeks ago that two females successfully completed Army Ranger School:
1st Lt. Shaye Haver, 25, and Capt. Kristen Griest, 26, received their Ranger tabs Friday, becoming the first women ever to successfully complete the U.S. Army’s Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga. — a grueling course that puts a premium on physical strength and endurance.
Haver, an Apache helicopter pilot, and Griest, a military police platoon leader, completed the course to the same standards as their 94 male classmates — a point emphasized by Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, the guest speaker at the graduation ceremony.
Congratulations to these young women.
It seems to me, however, that the two examples illustrate why the policy to created mixed combat units will not work. While it’s possible that a few exceptionally strong and committed women have it in them to complete training under the same standards as men, it’s also likely that there will only be a few. Whether due to lack of interest, body strength and stamina, or just having not “the right stuff,” women will never perform in large numbers to the same level as men. We just aren’t built the same nor do we possess the same hormonal makeup.
I would rather see separate, all female combat units that could perform in special circumstances. The number of women desiring this kind of training might increase under these circumstances and their contribution would free up all male units to perform the more difficult tasks.
It seems both dangerous and silly to change the entire military to accommodate the few, especially if lives are put at greater risk, as the Marine Corps study suggests.
You can spend $500,000 training two minimally qualified women or you can spend $500,000 to train two hundred highly qualified men. Do the math as you look at injuries, retention and effectiveness. The math always comes out the same way and anyone who argues otherwise is either a fool or a liar.
Women do not belong in ground combat as long as we have men willing to do the job. Women can be a great help doing other things. Women have much to contribute and we need them. But, not in a ground combat role.
The Army or the Marines move as units. They are only as effective as their weakest links. This is a reality of no holds barred war.
Hollywood can make movies depicting a heroic woman mowing down the bad guys but that isn’t reality.
The military is no place for a social experiment or placating feminists or courting the woman’s vote, the military is all about violence, killing and destroying, little girls and girly men need not apply.
When women make a regular appearance in the NFL, I’ll reconsider my position.
Jack: “The military is no place for a social experiment or placating feminists or courting the woman’s vote, the military is all about violence, killing and destroying, little girls and girly men need not apply.”
Jack, I don’t even necessarily disagree that women shouldn’t be ground troops (my mind isn’t made up), but language like this really hurts your argument. Do you really think women in the military are “little girls?” Language like this makes it too easy for others to dismiss your views as mere prejudice or sexism.
There are good arguments for not allowing women on the front lines but when you talk like this it makes those good arguments look bad by association.
Jack I’m a woman, mature to say the least, and I’m not at all offended by the words you chose. Being absurd to make a point is very effective, especially with people who are fed up with the tyranny of PC.
I’m so glad you commented, I hadn’t thought about the cost angle.
We do have a female referee, Shannon Easton, in the NFL this season. I give her a lot of credit for her grit, I just pray she doesn’t get mangled (accidentally) by a 350 LB nose guard.
Americans are weary of social experiments directed from on high. The military is being destroyed by it just when we need a strong military the most.