During my time in the USMC (1986-1990) the term WM (Women Marine) was used to identify female members of the Corps. For many, the term was referred to as “Waste of Money.” This was generally because women weren’t allowed in combat, and combat was the general mission and purpose of the Corps. Women did not exist within line companies. They were placed in support positions, generally admin or technical work. This didn’t mean that women were really a waste, that was simply the mentality of some who envisioned combat as being the only real function of the Corps. In point of fact, having WMs serve in non-combat positions allowed the men who would normally serve in those positions to serve in line companies instead.
Now it’s 2013, and the ban on women in combat has just been lifted. For many, the ban has seemed illogical and ineffective. For others, it made perfect sense – mainly from the perspective of physical strength, but also from the perspective of gender inequality, and perhaps some form of a male genetic predisposition to protect the fairer sex from potential death, dismemberment, torture, and rape.
Statistically, there exists a subset of women who are physically equal to the capabilities of men. Personally, I rarely saw them. I spent a year on temporary duty working side by side with WMs in an admin capacity entering data and tracking reports. When we went out for PT (daily) the routine we normally followed in the line companies was completely toned-down in order to let the women keep up. WMs were allowed to perform pushups using their knees instead of their feet. They weren’t expected to do much on the pull-up bars. Our usual torturous runs were limited to a few miles instead of eight. Coming from a line company, I watched most of them struggle, even with this more limited regimen.
Putting women in line companies will require changes. Segregated barracks and facilities for one – as we Americans still hold to the view that men and women showering together and living in the same room isn’t something we should be doing. Personally, I think that’s still good, given the personality types I encountered. This has always seemed a primitive limitation to me – that nudity is such an issue with our culture – but it is what it is, and we are a primitive people still. Allowing women in combat strips another layer of that primitive mentality, but we have a long way to go in regards to a gender-neutral psychology. It comes in small jumps, and this is one of them. Men and women are treated differently. We appear to like it this way as a society, or it would have changed long ago. It’s not just social convention either, men and women statistically migrate into roles they select. A part of that changed yesterday. Other countries allow women in combat and allow gays to serve. Now we join that club, and it will take some time to adjust our operations and our perceptions. We gain this enlightenment and its benefits at a cost to some minds, and no cost to others.
Sometimes physical limitations don’t matter. We think of weapons and some people get the idea that a gun doesn’t require much physical effort to operate. It doesn’t to fire, and many WMs excel at marksmanship, but running over a battlefield with a pack on does, and climbing cliff faces does, and humping a mortar plate, or carrying a large automatic weapon with ammunition does. Where these limitations don’t matter as much are in mechanized situations such as tanks, artillery, aircraft, and drones. This is where I see women playing a role first. Women can now be combat pilots. They’ll serve in artillery crews. They can be tank operators. And they’ll operate in this capacity in the combat theater with the intention that they’ll be killing the enemy with the same pre-programmed hardcore mentality as the men.
As for women being in those “boots on the ground” infantry situations, I think we’ll see that too. Some women can do it. Some want to do it. Now they can serve right alongside their male counterparts. And any woman who wants that role would surely have the grit for it, or they wouldn’t be trying, and they wouldn’t make it through the training. I wonder how long it will be before we see a married couple working together on the battlefield in a combat situation, or if that will even be allowed? So the world turns.
Filed under: Daily, society Tagged: | Pentagon Removes Restriction, Women in Combat, Women in Combat Roles
It’s a “win” in gender equality that I couldn’t care less about to be honest, but if these women think that’s what they want to do…go right ahead.
Yeah. You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that if they’d allowed women in the line companies when I was in, I probably would have ended up married to one of them. And then I’d be married to a fellow jarhead. This change alters the pathways of many lives into the future. It’s something of a linchpin event. It may not appear important, but if it never occurred, I’m betting the future would be entirely different in a significant way. Although it’s impossible to see that from the present. That’s the problem with seeing the future. As Yoda said, “difficult to see, the future, always in motion it is.” The little green dude was right.
You’re right, and I hadn’t thought of this, but there may be a separate military class (more so than what we see already) that disconnects itself more and more from the civilian world.
I understand limits based on ability but not on gender. If a woman can keep up, then I don’t see a problem. If the woman in question cannot keep up, then she should not be on a track that includes combat units. Put people in units based on skill sets and abilities. Gender is insignificant.
Yes, gender is insignificant from a cognitive perspective, but not from an emotional or social one, which is likely why the ban has stayed in place for so long. The perceptions of male soldiers will have to change to accept this alteration. And those women who can’t keep up in training will be weeded out just as those men who can’t keep up. Another factor is value to the team, and that gets balanced to some extent. I mean, you usually don’t give the M60 to the smallest person – male or female – you give it to someone that can handle carrying it long distances. That may be a man or a woman. But, regardless, everyone should be capable of handling it to some extent. (I should note that this is a bad example. Nowadays, M60 gunners are part of a weapons platoon, and they get attached to infantry platoons ad-hoc).
My nephew was in ROTC and said in training they specifically went after the women to get the men to talk.
Funny how that works.
Women wanting to be in combat doesn’t mean they should be. Unless they can be integrated without weakening combat units, they should not be allowed in those units. But I agree, there are many combat positions where they can function as well or better than men (I think particularly of pilots and computer/technology specialists).
BTW, I really like the way you cropped that image. I need to spend more time thinking about how I crop my images and get more creative with them. I do get tired of just one 3 x 5 rectangle after another.
Yes, and the same is true of men. If they can’t hack it, they’ll get cut the same as the men do.
I use PaintShop Pro to crop, but anything will work. I’m glad you liked it. I was generally focusing on the bun. Guys have to cut their hair very short, as I’m sure you know. I’ve often thought the women should too, if they’re going to be deployed in combat for long periods. There’s no room for vanity on the battlefield, and when you have to go without a shower for weeks at a time, long hair can get uncomfortable. Plus, if it gets loose and gets in your eyes at the wrong time, it could cost you your life.
[...] Women in Combat (writerdood.wordpress.com) [...]
If we step back in time to cave women. They still stayed home and did the whole nurturing thing while the men went off hunting and gathering. I think it is in our genetic makeup to avoid dangerous things like dinosaurs and AK47s. Just saying.
Now go get me a beer.