Posted on Jan 20, 2015
3
2
1
From "The Marine Corps Gazette"
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2015/01/outside-our-lane
Outside Our Lane - Bold and daring women do belong in all combat arms. A Rebuttal to “Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry”
The Marine Corps Gazette’s editorial decision not only to publish Capt Lauren Serrano’s article, “Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry”1 but additionally to award it first prize in the MajGen Harold W. Chase Prize essay contest is surprising and disappointing. Given their history of being thought leaders in a forum that challenges the status quo, this decision effectively moves the debate regarding women in the infantry backwards, harkening back to recent times with the same vernacular used to justify keeping homosexuals from serving openly, and even as far back as the 1940s, when many of these same points were used to justify continued racial segregation in the ranks. The article itself is based on outdated stereotypes, specious arguments, and poor logical reasoning, but what is more egregious is the Gazette’s all-male editorial advisory panel deciding to reward such a piece. In so doing, the Gazette has successfully undermined the purpose of the Chase Prize itself, which is to “challenge conventional wisdom,” “argue for a new and better way of doing business,” and to embody MajGen Chase’s belief that the Corps’ strength stems from “its ability to accept change.”2 Rather than embracing this ethos, the article is full of tired arguments defending the status quo, and reinforcing outmoded conventional thinking while simultaneously ignoring the Commandant’s measured, standards-based approach to researching the assignment of women as explained in the Marine Corps Force Integration Campaign Plan.3
Capt Serrano chooses to argue points that are independent of and separate from the salient issue that undergirds this debate—validated physical standards of the infantry and whether or not some women can meet them. Instead of focusing on abilities, she dwells on male infantry’s biases on why women, regardless of skill, should not serve among them. Furthermore, the article is rife with inaccurate stereotypes regarding male sexual behavior, overgeneralizing all women as physically incapable of service in the infantry, and the ever-present paranoia surrounding the falsely feared and exaggerated “women’s hygiene issues” in the field. The crux of Capt Serrano’s argument seems to be that young first-term infantry Marines possess a special, unique need to remain sequestered from women in order to fight well; furthermore, they apparently have more uncontrollable testosterone levels than other MOSs as well as their senior infantry counterparts serving in the special forces and/or working alongside counterintelligence Marines. Additionally, the captain maintains that these young infantry Marines have as their default setting sexual assault against women, enough even to make their wives worry about their husbands working alongside women in combat. This insults the capabilities, professionalism, intellect, and discipline of our Marines. We are better than that.
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2015/01/outside-our-lane
Outside Our Lane - Bold and daring women do belong in all combat arms. A Rebuttal to “Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry”
The Marine Corps Gazette’s editorial decision not only to publish Capt Lauren Serrano’s article, “Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry”1 but additionally to award it first prize in the MajGen Harold W. Chase Prize essay contest is surprising and disappointing. Given their history of being thought leaders in a forum that challenges the status quo, this decision effectively moves the debate regarding women in the infantry backwards, harkening back to recent times with the same vernacular used to justify keeping homosexuals from serving openly, and even as far back as the 1940s, when many of these same points were used to justify continued racial segregation in the ranks. The article itself is based on outdated stereotypes, specious arguments, and poor logical reasoning, but what is more egregious is the Gazette’s all-male editorial advisory panel deciding to reward such a piece. In so doing, the Gazette has successfully undermined the purpose of the Chase Prize itself, which is to “challenge conventional wisdom,” “argue for a new and better way of doing business,” and to embody MajGen Chase’s belief that the Corps’ strength stems from “its ability to accept change.”2 Rather than embracing this ethos, the article is full of tired arguments defending the status quo, and reinforcing outmoded conventional thinking while simultaneously ignoring the Commandant’s measured, standards-based approach to researching the assignment of women as explained in the Marine Corps Force Integration Campaign Plan.3
Capt Serrano chooses to argue points that are independent of and separate from the salient issue that undergirds this debate—validated physical standards of the infantry and whether or not some women can meet them. Instead of focusing on abilities, she dwells on male infantry’s biases on why women, regardless of skill, should not serve among them. Furthermore, the article is rife with inaccurate stereotypes regarding male sexual behavior, overgeneralizing all women as physically incapable of service in the infantry, and the ever-present paranoia surrounding the falsely feared and exaggerated “women’s hygiene issues” in the field. The crux of Capt Serrano’s argument seems to be that young first-term infantry Marines possess a special, unique need to remain sequestered from women in order to fight well; furthermore, they apparently have more uncontrollable testosterone levels than other MOSs as well as their senior infantry counterparts serving in the special forces and/or working alongside counterintelligence Marines. Additionally, the captain maintains that these young infantry Marines have as their default setting sexual assault against women, enough even to make their wives worry about their husbands working alongside women in combat. This insults the capabilities, professionalism, intellect, and discipline of our Marines. We are better than that.
Posted in these groups: 
Women in the Military
Women in the Military
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 10
3
3
0
Women have always been in combat. The issue has only come up because of media coverage. As a tactical air traffic controller convoying into Iraq in 2003, my female NCO that road shot gun for me fired her M-16 more than I did.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LCDR (Join to see) Lieutenant; In an age where there are (effectively) NO FRONT LINES, then the only way to "Keep Women Out Of Combat" is to leave them at home while the men go off to war. (Even that won't always work.)
I once worked with a Logistics Officer who actively DIScouraged running as a form of physical fitness training on the expressed ground that "By the time my troops have to actually run - it's too late for them to run anywhere safe so they are better off having good ground combat capabilities."
Strangely enough his people were among the fittest in the unit.
I once worked with a Logistics Officer who actively DIScouraged running as a form of physical fitness training on the expressed ground that "By the time my troops have to actually run - it's too late for them to run anywhere safe so they are better off having good ground combat capabilities."
Strangely enough his people were among the fittest in the unit.
(1)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
There is a difference between getting involved in combat by happenstance and deliberately closing with the enemy with the designed intent to destroy them.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc, I vehemently disagree with the integration of women into combat arms. I vehemently disagreed with policies that were in place when I enlisted; this has not prevented me from serving.
The fact is that most women cannot hack current male military standards -- as in the APFT -- let alone current Infantry, Ranger, and SF standards. If they could, there would be no such thing as male or female grading scales. There would be one scale, representing the military standard. Consider the USMC attempt to transition to requiring female Marines to do pullups instead of a flexed arm hang. More than half couldn't even do the minimum of three pullups. Also consider that a woman who could do eight pullups would receive a maximum score, while a man would have to do twenty to get the same score.
For the very few women that can hack it, the logistical and social problems are -- in my view -- too great to bother with.
No one has a *right* to serve in the military in any capacity. The military has a job to do, and anything or any one that detracts from that job has no business being there.
As the powers that be discover basic biological differences between men and women that common sense could have revealed to them long ago -- if they had common sense -- they are moving to reevaluate the standards, to determine whether they actually need to be as high as they are, or if the standards are mere sexist obstacles to integration.
Does anybody really think it's a good idea to make all of combat arms physically weaker, to accommodate social experimentation on our national defense?
The fact is that most women cannot hack current male military standards -- as in the APFT -- let alone current Infantry, Ranger, and SF standards. If they could, there would be no such thing as male or female grading scales. There would be one scale, representing the military standard. Consider the USMC attempt to transition to requiring female Marines to do pullups instead of a flexed arm hang. More than half couldn't even do the minimum of three pullups. Also consider that a woman who could do eight pullups would receive a maximum score, while a man would have to do twenty to get the same score.
For the very few women that can hack it, the logistical and social problems are -- in my view -- too great to bother with.
No one has a *right* to serve in the military in any capacity. The military has a job to do, and anything or any one that detracts from that job has no business being there.
As the powers that be discover basic biological differences between men and women that common sense could have revealed to them long ago -- if they had common sense -- they are moving to reevaluate the standards, to determine whether they actually need to be as high as they are, or if the standards are mere sexist obstacles to integration.
Does anybody really think it's a good idea to make all of combat arms physically weaker, to accommodate social experimentation on our national defense?
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA You make your points well.
Unfortunately you also confuse "most cannot" with "none can". Face it MOST members of the US military cannot meet the standards for Delta or Seal - which means, by extension of your logic, that NONE of them should be allowed to attempt the training.
The consensus appears to be "IF they can meet the EXACT SAME STANDARDS, let them have at it.". From an operational point of view that makes one hell of a lot of sense.
As far as the "logistical and social problems" are concerned, if you have two soldiers who both meet standards and one of them simply will not work well with the team, the general rule is to S-Can the trouble maker and keep the team player.
After "six days in the bush" NO ONE smells like roses or passes for a centerfold model. (If they do, you start to wonder just what the hell they were doing.)
As far as "re-evaluating the standards" I think that this is shocking. There probably aren't 10% of the members of the "pointy end" combat arms troops who can carry a sarissa with any effectiveness and everyone knows that the proper employment of one is absolutely essential to military success.
As to your concluding question, you might ask yourself "How does integrating Blacks/Females/Gays who are able to meet the same standards as everyone else and who are willing to play along with the team make the combat arms weaker?" Your arguments were used against "Blacks", they were used against "Gays", they are being used against "Females", they are going to be used against "Transgendered" - BUT the answer is always going to be the same.
As a good Jewish friend of mine once said three days after we were down to SPAM - "Pass the chicken.".
Unfortunately you also confuse "most cannot" with "none can". Face it MOST members of the US military cannot meet the standards for Delta or Seal - which means, by extension of your logic, that NONE of them should be allowed to attempt the training.
The consensus appears to be "IF they can meet the EXACT SAME STANDARDS, let them have at it.". From an operational point of view that makes one hell of a lot of sense.
As far as the "logistical and social problems" are concerned, if you have two soldiers who both meet standards and one of them simply will not work well with the team, the general rule is to S-Can the trouble maker and keep the team player.
After "six days in the bush" NO ONE smells like roses or passes for a centerfold model. (If they do, you start to wonder just what the hell they were doing.)
As far as "re-evaluating the standards" I think that this is shocking. There probably aren't 10% of the members of the "pointy end" combat arms troops who can carry a sarissa with any effectiveness and everyone knows that the proper employment of one is absolutely essential to military success.
As to your concluding question, you might ask yourself "How does integrating Blacks/Females/Gays who are able to meet the same standards as everyone else and who are willing to play along with the team make the combat arms weaker?" Your arguments were used against "Blacks", they were used against "Gays", they are being used against "Females", they are going to be used against "Transgendered" - BUT the answer is always going to be the same.
As a good Jewish friend of mine once said three days after we were down to SPAM - "Pass the chicken.".
(5)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
COL Ted Mc, you said I make my points well -- thank you.
I have not, in fact, confused "most cannot" with "none can". I am fully cognizant of the fact that there are women in the United States military who could meet Infantry standards.
I do believe that there are so few that both desire combat arms and are capable of meeting the standards that it is not worth the while of the military to accommodate them. You disagree, that's certainly fine.
I admit I had to look up the definition of sarissa. Even my spellchecker rejects it.
The standards seem to work as they are. I don't think that combat has changed so significantly since the standards were established to warrant reevaluation, especially when that reevaluation is for the sole purpose of accommodating social experimentation on our national defense.
The difference in your comparison with "integrating Blacks/Females/Gays" is that there are no real biological/physiological differences between black or gay men and white or straight men. There are definite relevant differences between men and women. In fact, that's why we have the words 'men' and 'women.'
I have not, in fact, confused "most cannot" with "none can". I am fully cognizant of the fact that there are women in the United States military who could meet Infantry standards.
I do believe that there are so few that both desire combat arms and are capable of meeting the standards that it is not worth the while of the military to accommodate them. You disagree, that's certainly fine.
I admit I had to look up the definition of sarissa. Even my spellchecker rejects it.
The standards seem to work as they are. I don't think that combat has changed so significantly since the standards were established to warrant reevaluation, especially when that reevaluation is for the sole purpose of accommodating social experimentation on our national defense.
The difference in your comparison with "integrating Blacks/Females/Gays" is that there are no real biological/physiological differences between black or gay men and white or straight men. There are definite relevant differences between men and women. In fact, that's why we have the words 'men' and 'women.'
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA You say"I do believe that there are so few that both desire combat arms and are capable of meeting the standards that it is not worth the while of the military to accommodate them." and I refer you back to my " Face it MOST members of the US military cannot meet the standards for Delta or Seal - which means, by extension of your logic, that NONE of them should be allowed to attempt the training." and ask you why we should bother to accommodate those who could and want to?
You also say 'There are definite relevant differences between men and women. In fact, that's why we have the words 'men' and 'women.'". Did you realize that there are over 250 languages which do not have "gendered" pronouns? In those languages it is impossible to say "He is a soldier." or "She should not be a soldier.".
Indeed, there are physiological differences between men and women. Mind you, there are physiological differences between a 5'6" 250# man and a 6'2" 250# man as well (there are also physiological differences between a 5'6" 150# man and a 6'2" 150# man [there are also physiological differences between a 5'10' 175# man who has trained for strength and endurance and a 5'10" 175# man who has trained for speed - to say nothing of the difference between both of them and a 5'10" 175# man whose idea of strenuous exercise is walking to the refrigerator to get a beer]). This is why we have scales and tape measures.
Now, of the seven physiological types I have just mentioned, you have to pick just one to attempt (let's call it "Rangerborne" training. Which one would you pick.
Oh yes, sorry, I forgot to mention that the 5'10" 175# 'strength and endurance' type just happens to be the only female in the bunch - who DOES want to take the training.
As for "accommodating", you will find that that is one hell of a lot less of a problem in "select" formations where EVERYONE has had to pass the same tough standards in order to qualify as a member. (I think that it has something to do with "respect".)
You also say 'There are definite relevant differences between men and women. In fact, that's why we have the words 'men' and 'women.'". Did you realize that there are over 250 languages which do not have "gendered" pronouns? In those languages it is impossible to say "He is a soldier." or "She should not be a soldier.".
Indeed, there are physiological differences between men and women. Mind you, there are physiological differences between a 5'6" 250# man and a 6'2" 250# man as well (there are also physiological differences between a 5'6" 150# man and a 6'2" 150# man [there are also physiological differences between a 5'10' 175# man who has trained for strength and endurance and a 5'10" 175# man who has trained for speed - to say nothing of the difference between both of them and a 5'10" 175# man whose idea of strenuous exercise is walking to the refrigerator to get a beer]). This is why we have scales and tape measures.
Now, of the seven physiological types I have just mentioned, you have to pick just one to attempt (let's call it "Rangerborne" training. Which one would you pick.
Oh yes, sorry, I forgot to mention that the 5'10" 175# 'strength and endurance' type just happens to be the only female in the bunch - who DOES want to take the training.
As for "accommodating", you will find that that is one hell of a lot less of a problem in "select" formations where EVERYONE has had to pass the same tough standards in order to qualify as a member. (I think that it has something to do with "respect".)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I am all for allowing women to serve in ground combat MOSs provided as there is a single, gender-neutral physical standard that is at least equal to the current male standards. The women that can meet that have my full support. I am categorically opposed to lowering physical standards in order to artificially place a female population into the ground combat ranks. The mission is far too important, in my opinion.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL (Join to see) Major; That does appear to be the majority view (across all ranks) from the people at RP.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google