A Woman Explains Why Women Shouldn’t Be In Combat Units, And She's Got A Point

Hotair ^ | 01/15/2019 | Jazz Shaw

[SeekAndFind]

While this subject has largely fallen into the “settled” category for the most part, it’s still being brought up for discussion among the public. We’re once again talking about women in combat. Back during the Obama administration, Ash Carter was directed to open all combat roles to women. At the time, we were assured that female recruits would have to meet the same physical standards as their male counterparts. Slowly but sure, however, that principle was eroded.

As Heather Mac Donald writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), the standards did indeed change. But even with those relaxed standards, only two women have made it through the U.S. Marines’ infantry officer training course.

Only two women have passed the Marine Corps’s fabled infantry-officer training course out of the three dozen who have tried. Most wash out in the combat endurance test, administered on day one. Participants hike miles while carrying combat loads of 80 pounds or more, climb 20-foot ropes multiple times, and scale an 8-foot barrier. The purpose of the test is to ensure that officers can hump their own equipment and still arrive at a battleground mentally and physically capable of leading troops.
Most female aspirants couldn’t pass the test, so the Marines changed it from a pass/fail requirement to an unscored exercise with no bearing on the candidate’s ultimate evaluation. The weapons-company hike during the IOC is now “gender neutral,” meaning that officers can hand their pack to a buddy if they get tired, rather than carrying it for the course’s full 10 miles.

Lowering these physical requirements risks reducing the American military’s lethality. A more serious effect of sex integration has become taboo to mention: the inevitable introduction of eros into combat units. Putting young, hormonally charged men and women into stressful close quarters for extended periods guarantees sexual liaisons, rivalries and breakups, all of which undermine the bonding essential to a unified fighting force.

We had those physical standards for combat troops for a reason. You need to be able to handle those grueling conditions if you’re expected to go into a combat zone. Weakening them, as Mac Donald points out, risks lessening the lethal capabilities and rapid response abilities of our armed forces. Rather than empowering and advancing women, we’re degrading our combat effectiveness.

As regular readers already know, I’m one of those dinosaurs who is opposed to sending women into combat even if they can match the men’s physical standards. (Something I wrote at length about six years ago, admitting my own hypocrisy and double standard on this issue.) I come from a time where war was a primal – and entirely male – undertaking, filled with a duty to “protect our women back home.” Further, while imprisonment by the enemy is a horrific prospect for anyone, it’s especially bad for women as they will almost certainly fall victim to rape as a weapon of war, particularly when fighting terrorists that are little better than animals. Actually, that last sentence is an insult to animals.

I seem to have lost that debate. So be it. But if we must have women in combat roles, I think Heather Mac Donald has it exactly right. They should have to meet the same physical standards that the men have traditionally been subjected to. Demanding any less is not a victory for women. It’s a loss for our military and the nation’s security.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

Heather Mac Donald is a graduate of Yale, Cambridge, and Stanford. She’s the author of The Diversity
Delusion, published just months ago. Just finished reading it. Highly recommended.

[excalibur21]

Agreed!! I know of a man who was wounded during a heavy enemy attack in Afghanistan. A female teammate threw herself on top of him to protect him. She remained there throughout the fight. While she was lauded for her actions, from a tactical standpoint not was just one weapon neutralized by the enemy but 2 were now out of the fight while the entire unit was in jeopardy of being overrun. It appears to me that female natural instincts are not always the same as men’s.

[veracious]

Socialized military. Experiments in collapse.

[Rushmore Rocks]

Men make war. Women make warriors.

[blueunicorn6]

It’s bad enough that young men die in war.

Killing women is killing the future.

[Seruzawa]

The purpose is the destruction of the military not the promotion of women’s rights. Our enemies laugh at us for our stupidity.

[Paal Gulli]

The dumbest decision foisted on the US Army in my lifetime is the dissolution of the Women’s Army Corps.

[Lizavetta]

I was at a boot camp graduation of Marines at Perris Island last year. They gave awards at the end for best in fitness and best at marksmanship.

One award for the best men in both categories, one award for the best women. And the best woman's scores were less.

At the time I didn't need any more to convince me that women are inferior to men in strength and endurance, but that was certainly eyewitness proof. If women were as good as, there would be no need for a special category.

[Sergio]

Great link, thanks for posting.

[3boysdad]

I experienced similar weakening of cohesiveness because of women in the engine room while serving in the Navy. We literally ran under billeted the whole 4 years I was in the hole because they couldn’t handle the conditions and/or were out pregnant from fraternization. Except for the bull dykes of course... everyone was scared of them!

[Texas resident]

A country that sees nothing wrong with sending women into combat is a country detached from what it means to be human.

My grandfather made that statement 20 years ago. He was a captain in the infantry in France in 1918. He has horrible nightmares was the war scarred him badly. He never spoke of his time over there.

He added that our country puts it male population this his kind of hell, why should we put the females through that also?

[Texas resident]

The USA will never fight an enemy that puts women in the front lines. Why should we weaken our position?

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[hanamizu]

There are overwhelming cultural reasons why the very idea of women in combat units should be rejected

---

The real reason in natural/biological. Women are the only humans who can have children. A country that loses 10% of its young men is damaged, but will survive. A country that loses 10% of its young women is doomed.

Paraguay lost 50% of its male population 100 years ago in a stupid war. It is still crippled as a result. Had it lost 50% of its child-bearing-age women, there would be no Paraguay.

Even primitive tribes in New Guinea understand this.

[YogicCowboy]

I agree wholeheartedly. Women do not belong in combat. They can serve in other ways.

[YogicCowboy]

My grandfather: sole survivor of his platoon in 1918. Would not speak of the horrors.

[DainBramage]

Me too....crept the enemy don’t play that way.

[central_va]

MY dad lost half his squad in 5 minutes in Korea. That’s all he said. No details, ever.

[Chickensoup]

Heather MacDonald often writes for City journal. Well worth getting their emails. Links to Great articles and actually there is a great periodical too if you want to subscribe.

[MikelTackNailer]

You are correct as usual but I met and befriended the exemption to the rule. A woman who not only met the old physical fitness standards but able to tote her pack’s weight and look after her team mates. Pretty certain she was a mutant as she once drug me across the finish line of a 5k run contest. Mutant that God meant me to meet to teach me to never assume anything for granted. Pretty sure she self destructed can not find her. We do what we can.