Women in the Infantry

melanie4 · Jun 16, 2011

Edit: I bolded the link I wish to discuss in case you don't want to read all my crap opinions on the subject and end up missing it in your boredom from reading such a lengthy post

For those of you who do not know I finished up a four year enlistment with the Marine Corps in March. I was also infantry and I'm still a bit in the "last four years of my life" mindset and sometimes I come across a little foreign in my posts and attitude because of it. That said, my opinions about this are probably not going to be what is expected from a "dumb jarhead."

As I was finishing up my enlistment homosexuals were a big issue that got changed in the military. I honestly didn't see a big "no homosexuals in our military!" attitude on the grunt side of things, but I'm sure it was there. I think the people in the military who have had the time to dedicate to protest and opinion and aren't so stressed with their life that they couldn't care less about such a subject to do such a thing aren't really the people whose opinion is worth hearing. When it really comes down to it I think there is an amount of people who don't like it and are against it, but aren't going to go out of their way to try and stomp the issue out because a job needs to be done and the subject of homosexuality really isn't that important (which is not meant to offend anyone who orients themselves as homosexual).

Currently though, a big subject is women in the infantry. In the Marine Corps they are going through a testing phase of putting women through Infantry Officer training to see if they can hack it (lolz at that, since they put them in the position of people who do the least in the infantry to test their ability to cope . . . officers).

The only reason I'm against having women in the infantry is because of how we are constructed socially by gender roles as a society currently. Women do not have to meet the same physical standards as men in the military, as well as I've seen plenty of women take advantage of being women to get out of certain duties or get their way during my time in because of this. I believe there are women who can cope with it and perform the job well, no doubt. The drill master from my bootcamp was a female and she could probably out squat, out run, and out fight probably the majority of people on this site. She was one scary woman and I believe fully that she could perform the job of an infantryman with no problem. But she is also a minority of women. When talking about filling a large role in something you need the majority of people to be able to go through and be capable, and because of what we expect out of the majority of women by social standards today I think there is a lot that needs to change before they can mentally, as well as physically be able to cope with the stresses of an infantry position. It's a very different world and it has been dominated by men forever, and I believe the obstacles that need to be overcome aren't in the military itself, but how we treat gender roles as civilians in the formative years of our children.

That's my opinion in a nutshell and anyone reading can take it for what it is. I'm not against women in the military because they are women, but because of the mentality of people today based on gender roles that are ingrained in us as we grow up. Things are slowly changing which I think is good, but I don't think it has changed enough to be able to implement the changes the military is testing out currently.

Then I came across this link on one of the websites I frequent. http://earlystart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/10/usmc-captain-katie-petronio-why-women-shouldnt-be-in-infantry/?iref=allsearch

Aside from the obvious power of having a woman officer say, I think she brings up some pretty valid points (only because I'm not familiar with woman physiology being that I'm a man). Would the cost of maintaining outweigh the benefit of implementing this policy? Obviously a lot more study needs to go into it before such an opinion could become legitimate and her personal account does not blanket all women. If any women are reading this, what do you think about her views on this? Do you share the same concerns as her?

I'm not really looking to have anyone stomp around and give a equality/civil rights speech with this subject, nor am I bashing on women or want to hear why men think women aren't capable. I think when it comes down to it women are just as capable as men but because of how women and men have treated each other through thousands of years in history, that the social constructs that we have prevent them from reaching their full potential both by oppressive tactics by men/organizations and to some degree a self-defeating mentality by women themselves (which is mostly to blame on the oppression).

I am interested in hearing legitimate opinions from women themselves if they think the women from the previous link has a legitimate opinion, or if anyone has some other good reason beyond "because women should be in the kitchen!" mentality. I hope that some sort of informative discussion can go on here that can help me build a better opinion and have more knowledge in the subject and it not dwindle down to the thread being locked due to inflaofftopictory comments.

So that said . . . . what's your opinion on all this?

Jimbojangelse · Jun 16, 2011

If a woman can pass the same tests as a man to the same standards as a man, then they should be allowed to do any job a man can do.

So if a woman can pass the physical and functional tests that are required of an infantryman, then they should be allowed to serve as an infantryman.

I don't see why there needs to be a discussion beyond that. Anything else is just noise.

Crystal4Eva · Jun 16, 2011

For anyone interested in following what the military is currently doing with this subject here is a link to the Marine Corps' newspaper website. Some of it is pretty sensationalized though so take it for what it is, but it's generally a better source to find out what's going on then the normal media.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/

This is the article written by the Captain that was the point of discussion in the video:http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

PsychedelicPussycat · Jun 16, 2011

Did you watch the video? It's a "cost vs. benefit" argument made which brings up different questions to ask (for me anyways). It's also a different sort of argument then what you generally hear about this topic that stems beyond physical ability to do something, and touches on medical issues and possible mental trauma later on due to those possible medical issues that aren't the normal issues that come from PTSD with combat veterans.

princess_nubia · Jun 16, 2011

But it's horse manure. She went on tour, it broke her, therefore women are too weak to fight in the infantry. She clearly left her logical reasoning skills in theatre.

The argument that women shouldn't fight in the infantry because fighting in the infantry may cause health problems has so much fail in it that I'm not sure where to begin. I mean seriously, she's making that argument? Seriously?

Let's be clear about what she's doing - she's trying to excuse the difficulties she faced in combat by making it about her gender. There's two things about that that make me want to punch her in the face.

1) The idea that you having an adverse reaction to combat is something you need to excuse
2) That she is of such weak character that she has tried to sully the name of all women because she can't cope with the idea that she, herself, as an individual wasn't mentally robust enough to deal with it.

Plenty of men have been shattered mentally by combat. Does that mean that men shouldn't be allowed to serve in the infantry? No, of course not, because that argument is moronic.

Blackbridge16 · Jun 16, 2011

I think you're missing the point. An "adverse reaction to combat" is an extremely laughable comment. Who the hell goes to combat and comes out "oh, I'm a stronger, more mentally stable person now!" The question she is posing is if the extra added medical costs that could possibly be a major factor (which I stated in the original post that obviously more study would need to be done) in the long run outweigh the benefits of having women directly serve in the infantry.

She also wasn't "broken" by the deployment. There isn't anyone that goes on a deployment, especially on the combat side that doesn't get broke. Everything she is talking about is common in males and females, but because of her gender she had added issues that are absolutely not common in association with men. Broken means you quit and go home, she didn't do that.

Edit: To your bolded comment, for your awareness the infantry does not mean "bad ass in combat 24/7." There is a lot more involved that fills up a lot more time that a lot of people aren't aware of.

blue_teen_queen · Jun 16, 2011

I'm pretty sure she used the word 'broke' to describe herself.

Her case is predicated on the notion that there are more female specific health problems than male specific health problems, but she lacks the knowledge and the data to make that argument. She talks about estrogen, but what about testosterone levels in men? Sperm counts? Prostate health?

A lot of men have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan missing...ahem...vital body parts, that a woman would not. Those are treatments men need that women wouldn't.

She's cherry picking her arguments. It's nonsense.

Edit: and I used the word 'fighting' in the previous post loosely, replace it with 'serving' if it makes you feel better. It makes the same point
Edit 2: and the " An "adverse reaction to combat" is an extremely laughable comment. " comment you made - that was the point I was making. She had an adverse reaction and is ashamed of it, when she shouldn't be.

breathe · Jun 16, 2011

Well, that was an informative post. My sister who was career army, 30 years total could outshoot and outrun most of the men in her unit. Granted she wasn't the strongest or most aggressive but she is an imposing soldier none the less. Anyway, she got her share of comments regarding women in the military which she disproved on a regular basis.

The Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Cubans and a whole bunch of other countries use women in combat with few problems that I know of. If a woman wants to put her behind on the line to protect us civvies then it should be her right if she can meet the training standards.

The russians knew that most women could outshoot men in WWII due to their more stable mentality and used them with amazing results as snipers. I guess it all boils down to that if they want to fight, let them.

Narissa · Jun 16, 2011

"Broke" is a common jargon in the Marine Corps that doesn't necessarily mean "broken." If you had a hard PT session, you're "broke off" if you have a hard patrol it "broke you." What she's describing isn't a "I can't do it" broke, but "it was very hard."

You have a very hardball approach to posting and that's where I'm getting confused and wrongly interpreting what you're saying. That's my fault but clearly you're able to recognize my shortcomings and correct me (that's not meant as sarcasm!). It'll be an achievable obstacle to overcome.

Any case in which men have lost their genital I am confident to say would probably cause a woman to lose hers. It's generally not a clean cut from shrapnel cutting off an appendage, but a piece of shrapnel or bullet that causes a wound so sever those areas cannot be retained. A lot of amputees still have some part of their limb still attached at the time of injury but it's not recoverable, same case with genital amputation from what I've heard. It's also probably one of those situations that's not nearly as common as people believe it to be.

The biggest interest of mine in her argument is whether or not it is actually valid. I know a few of my buddies who have had to get tested for testosterone and sperm count levels but it has never really been a common thing. I also haven't heard of men losing testosterone production. Carrying heavy loads and aggression are strongly correlated with testosterone production, I'm almost inclined to say there is probably an increase in testosterone production in men during combat but I would have to look into it a lot more to have a valid opinion. I think she has a valid point for some studies that are a little more in depth on the subject, not that she has an end all opinion on women in the infantry. What she inquires about may also be answered in the current testing phase of women in the Infantry Officer Course, who knows?

I will admit that I'm being a little nit-picky on some of the way you word things, like using "fighting" for infantry to describe the job. I have found from personal experience that people who generalize like that about the military are often seriously lacking in knowledge about the things that the military actually does, as well as learning how my own generalizations in certain subjects create conflict in discussion. It is unfair on my part and if I have any concern with anything I'll ask about it rather then stereotype you, and I apologize for doing so.

desk · Jun 16, 2011

The problem with the first part is that generally the units that women are with in the U.S. aren't seriously trained in the combat side of things. While she may have very well been more proficient in shooting and physical standards, non infantry units are often not held to the same standards as infantrymen are. I would say an average Infantryman is probably the upper end of shooting/pt ability of non infantry units. This isn't to say that she wouldn't be capable of serving in the infantry or that her unit wasn't generally well skilled in shooting or physical endurance/strength, but rather addressing the generalization that everyone in the military has the same standards held to them (which they do not).

My honest opinion is that I believe a woman can do anything a man can do as far as the infantry job goes. Men can obviously become a lot stronger then women which makes it easier for men in some things, but at a certain point there is only a small requirement of strength for the job and that's generally calisthenic oriented, not weight room dependent. Load carrying could be an issue, but I don't see it as a serious one. A lot of guys are horrible at carrying heavy loads too, that part is more a mindset then physical ability in my opinion and experiences.

Dreamlite · Jun 16, 2011

Wow, this has really confirmed my belief that people authoritatively state opinions they have no basis to make due to a belief they are entitled.

I'll keep my opinions to myself, even though the Captain that wrote the article did stumble into my AO for a few days to turn our hill into a PB. Even with that, and my experiences with her in the USV, I still am greatly offended holyheadjch thinks they have the moral right to comment on her article and experiences in AFG or IQ. Regardless of her claims versus the actuality of her deployments, she still went out to an area in AFG where most Marines, male or female, wouldn't and never have ventured.

HyacinthBouquet · Jun 16, 2011

I understand that if women were allowed in combat roles it would cause issues (financing and bumping being two lesser ones). But on te flip side of the coin, doesn't anything new cause issues that need to be addresses.

Maniac · Jun 16, 2011

I understand how you feel afhuss. I have to restrain how I feel about people's comments A LOT and you and I, as well as many other veterans have good reason to feel the way that we do when we read stuff that are from people who haven't lived that part of life. Regardless though, not everyone has the same experience or understanding and even if they have hardline approaches with their reasoning it's not fair for us as veterans, as those with the experience and knowledge, to simply put people down for having those views when it is not entirely their fault for not having the understanding. I know it's like getting a slap to the face sometimes and all you want to do is go crush that person . . . but that's not the way we want the world to really work is it? I would love for you to engage in this thread afhuss, if you think you can do so in a way that's not going to get you banned. This thread has a lot of touchy issues in it that go beyond the topic of the thread.

hakulchan · Jun 16, 2011

I'm going to assume you meant bunking?!

I don't see how that would be a major issue. On the non-infantry side on Camp Lejeune the males and females stay in the same barracks, just not the same rooms. It may actually benefit everyone in the infantry because somebody might feel obligated to actually kill all the black mold growing in the rooms and fix the plumbing and air conditioning!

NuNyaBe · Jun 16, 2011

What I find interesting is that we wont allow them in the infantry but they can be MPs. Today MP role is far from the old "white hat" days where they stayed on post and wrote tickets or broke up brawls at the NCO club. The role of the MP today is a combat support role. In fact an MP squat is more heavily armed and outfitted then an infantry one. MPs are mobile as opposed to straight-leg units. MPs perform convoy escort, route recon and a wealth of other duties that place them right in harms way.

I don't know of any cases where an MP squad has met their doom because one of the female soldiers caved under fire or failed to do her job.

To me its simply a matter of mindset. Female soldiers are already dying in war while driving trucks in convoys, etc, why not let them actually ante up and kick in? Seems its just our old fashioned belief that somehow women are inferior. But THAT's going to be the biggest hurdle of all. Changing mindset is never easy. Look what it took to free the slaves, look what it took to establish equal rights (a battle we're STILL fighting), look at the battle homosexuals are fighting to have the same rights as straight folk. Anytime you try to change mindset you always get those stubborn few who dig in and refuse to change simply for the sake of being contrary.

Truth be told, I dont know that women will get to wear infantry blue braids and infantry blue discs on class A uniforms in my lifetime. Not for any lack of ability on their part, but rather simply a lack of ability on OUR part.

You'll always have men who feel they need to white knight a female, regardless of the situation. We see it every day at work, in social circles and its largely overlooked but overlay that with the dangers of combat and you have male soldiers taking unnecessary risks to either save female soldiers they dont think can save themselves, or that they've developed feelings for, or simply because "my maofftopic always taught me to be nice to girls"...

It's not the females that are the problem, its us.

AshKetchum · Jun 16, 2011

Aside from any physical/mental limitations there is data I found at one point which stated that when women were serving in the field with men and they were injured or killed the men had a tendency to go berserk on the enemy. Depending on context this could be a good thing but could also turn out very badly from an ethical standpoint if things like torture came into play.

Alobar · Jun 16, 2011

This is a section of the article written by the Captain in the video. Note that it's not about women not being capable of serving in a combat environment, but rather about medical issues she's faced and attrition rates in different "schools" in the Marine Corps. I think she has valid points and that more data needs to be collected for a better understanding honestly.

fizixx · Jun 16, 2011

I understand your concern for me representing a stereotypically ignorant point of view, but I assure you I am far from that...and in no way have any emotional ties to this issue. I guess my point was to suggest the moderation of a certain level of respect in this particular thread. I felt the other poster was being juvenile in rhetoric and displaying ignorance in subject matter when suggesting the author of the debated article needs to get punched in the face.

Again, I really don't have emotional ties to this issue. I will suggest there are utilitarian inconvenience of gender-integrated infantry units in the field. Unlike sexual preference, skin color, or religion, gender differences represent a disparity of a physiological nature. For those that want to suggest 'any woman who can qualify physically should be able to be in the infantry' I would counter that current physical test batteries are not, in fact, equal. Not only that, they certainly do not offer an accurate prediction of success in the infantry field...regardless of gender. So, its not really a valid point for either side of the argument...even if IOC makes equal physical requirements (and anyone in the military will know that, even if something is supposed to be equal, if its a newly proposed policy it will be fudged to make it appear as successful to appease coofftopicnders).

Far and above that there are non-physical considerations. There is a certain social and practical dynamic in an infantry unit. Camaraderie and morale is important in a balanced and functioning team. Currently, anytime females are thrown into the equation...like when the Capt. who wrote the article did with us...that presence disrupts the dynamic. Behavior is completely required to change, stress jumps up, people are walking on eggshells, etc. This is, in part, due to the fact she was a visitor...but there still remains aspects of pretty key differences...like the ones mentioned in her article among others.

I am sure there is potential for non-physical issues to be overcome in a generation; or so, post-integration, but I guess a valid enough argument has to be made as it pertains to risk vs reward. I really haven't heard a good argument other than for the sake of social experimentation and political maneuvering. This is what upsets a lot of veterans...the use of the military as a political battleground for social experimentation. The integration of homosexuals, while in a practical matter probably upset less people in the military, per capita, than it did in 'the world'...did seem to upset people in the military for what it represented politically. The military stands apart from normal society...our rights are as different from normal society as is our culture and social dynamics. The cause-heads pushing civilian political movements on the military for the sake of politics makes me feel cheap and used.

jakeedd · Jun 16, 2011

Lol, I had to re-read that a couple times because I had no idea what you were talking about. My post was addressed from one veteran (me) to another (you) on how people discuss us or people like us. To put it bluntly in a way that's probably offensive to others but I think you'll understand, "people think they rate to say what they want without having been through anything". In this case it being the level of disrespect in some of the statements made against this woman in another post. All I was saying is that I understood you in a way a lot of people won't, but I want the thread to keep going so I would appreciate if you didn't engage in the thread if you can't refrain from unleashing but would be more then happy to hear your opinion. I understand that knee-jerk reaction to wanting to slap somebody through the screen but I would like to attempt to gather a few different opinions on the subject so that sort of attitude isn't going to be helpful.

Awesome post on your views about political maneuvering though, definitely bringing another perspective to the issue.

Icey · Jun 16, 2011

Thats not the issue being discussed...and regardless it is a non-issue with most people I know in the military.

Integration with homosexuals was not a big deal in the military. Race and sexual preference doesn't enter into equality in an infantry unity...gender does, physiologically. There are exceptions...but why fundamentally alter the social and functional dynamic of the infantry for a few exceptions when there are already plenty of males who don't belong in the infantry. Nothing to do with women in combat, just in an infantry platoon.

Similarly things don't need to be changed for the sake of changing them. Women are equal to men socially and have the same rights...this is great, but doesn't mean that everything is appropriate for everyone to do. Please keep in mind that, if the government decides the military will be integrated, it will become so...whether or not the test trials are actually successful, they will be made so.

I don't know about that. Having personally taken unnecessary risks to save someone's life...and having them do the same for me, I don't see how it would be any different with women involved. In a kinetic environment, I know I don't have time to make gender-based decisions. I don't feel this is a valid argument for the anti-women in combat side.

"my maofftopic always taught me to be nice to girls" --does that antagonistic statement suggest that I have to let a female die to serve a social agenda threatened by the stigma that women are perceived as week? Coming from the perspective of a person who is involved with pro-women's groups such as Take Back the Night, I find that suggestion offensive.

The problem is the assumption that everyone is appropriate for, and has the right to do, what everyone else does or is appropriate for. I think people get confused as to what fundamental rights are. If women want to 'get some' in combat they have plenty of options...and its not something people really take that much issue with.

Women in the Infantry

Member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Member

Member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Member

New member

New member

Member

Member

New member

New member

New member

Similar threads