View Full Version : Survey: Some Marines would quit if women in combat
BMT (RIP)
02-02-2013, 04:32
Male Marines also listed among their top concerns fears about being falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault, fraternization or some Marines getting preferential treatment.
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/survey-some-marines-would-quit-if-women-combat
BMT
The sorry thing is that Washington does not care if they effect the military in this stupid social experiment. We are just pawns in their agenda.
The sorry thing is that Washington does not care if they effect the military in this stupid social experiment. We are just pawns in their agenda.
Did you ever stop to think this was its intent all along? Let's get rid of the folks we know would oppose us but putting in place programs we know they will leave over? Then we won't have to worry about independant thinkers and we can do what we want at will.
If this ia the cause of one leaving, I would think of the long term consequences of doing so.
I am in no way surprised that Marines responded this way. The Marine Corps is a much more insulated BRANCH of the service than the Army. The Air Force and Navy largely have very few areas that are closed to women now. And, with notable exceptions (SEALs, PJs, CCTS, etc.) have almost no personnel involved in ground combat. The culture of the Marine Corps is radically different than that in the other branches. There is a saying that pops up every MC birthday, "Happy Birthday, U.S. Marine Corps! 238 Years Unhampered By Progress!" And in some ways that's true. Back in the '80's the Corps was chastised for not having enough female and minority officers. Then Commandant General A. Gray replied to DOD that they could not pass the night land nav or swim tests. DOD told him to fix it. He told DOD to send him candidates that could swim and navigate in the dark. Period. Case closed. I also remember back in the "80's when a female Cpt. went through SFOC. I ran into Tom T. T., one of my former Phase I Tacs later and he said it was pitiful. But, the BIG GREEN BOX ARMY said that she must be let into the course and must pass. Kind of like the foreign exchange students. So the corporate culture at the top of these two branches has been clearly different for thirty years.
The Marine Corps' basic indoctrination program is almost monastic. Thus it makes for an intensely loyal, closed society, very resistant to change and outside pressure. And IMHO, that's not a bad thing, given the mission of the Corps. With the lifting of "Don't ask, don't tell" and the institution of "We know who you blow," the Marine Corps was of particular concern to DOD. So..... I do look for some limited exodus from the Corps. This can be a great boon to SF, Rangers SEALs, because these guys will go somewhere else when they leave. (I know that all of you have served on teams with plenty of Jarheads. I served on one that was almost half former Marines and was called the "Jar Team.")The problem is they will be replaced with people who may be indoctrinated into the new kinder, more all inclusive Marine Corps. Consequences be damned. And our Nation will suffer for it.
(When I refer to BRANCH, it is the Big Green Box Army, excluding SF, SOF troops. We obviously have our own cliquish, insulated society and ethos. And not to say that many members of that branch don't share that ethos.)
Semper Fi,
Beef
SFA# D-3400-Life
Force Recon Association# 2100 (USMC)
2d Recon Bn Association Life Member (USMC)
The Marine Corps is a much more insulated BRANCH of the service than the Army. The Air Force and Navy largely have very few areas that are closed to women now. And, with notable exceptions (SEALs, PJs, CCTS, etc.) have almost no personnel involved in ground combat.
The Navy provides all the corpsmen for the Marines. Wonder what's going to happen when a few of the 'equal' start showing up in large numbers.
airbornediver
02-02-2013, 10:45
Male Marines also listed among their top concerns fears about being falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault, fraternization or some Marines getting preferential treatment.
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/survey-some-marines-would-quit-if-women-combat
BMT
It's not just Marines that worry about this, many of my infantry compatriots that I've spoken with are concerned about this as well. As they should be, a false accusation of sexual harassment can kill a career and cause a shitstorm - regardless if its false or not.
Not to mention the worry that standards will drop (which we all know they will), thereby lowering the quality of soldiers; with the exception of the rare few who try to max the standards not just meet them.
The Navy provides all the corpsmen for the Marines. Wonder what's going to happen when a few of the 'equal' start showing up in large numbers.
Actually, MR2, that's probably one of the first initiatives they'll take. Sending
female Corpsman to the infantry platoons. I mean, they're not really Marines, so no threat (although many of our old SARC docs would beg to differ!) So that would get the boys accustomed to the female touch, hiding their willies to pee, etc. before sending in the first girl grunts.
I'd be more concerned with the combat efficiency of the unit or team. A unit or team is only able to move as quickly or fast as its slowest member, The range a team or unit can cover is limited by the endurance level of its weakest member. It's time in the field limited by what its weakest member can carry as a load.
Once again, our PC visions are going to explode in the real world. We don't "profile" people at airport security because that is not PC, so grandma gets sexually violated in the name of protecting the homeland while those whose profiles are consistent with actual threats are waved through security.
I have to agree that this seems to be more than just an exercise in political correctness. If I were on the other side, I would want to make it as uncomfortable for the civilian population as possible, while reducing the effectiveness of my opponent's ability to fight. Combine this idiocy with attempts to disarm US citizens, and you have made this country ripe for destruction from without or within.
Cordite, your points are dead on. I know that I'm old, so to go back to the '70's and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), one of the features where that women were to eligible for the draft. The openly stated purpose by NOW was that while the country was accustomed to sending its sons to war, it would think twice about drafting its daughters. It also lifted the ban on women in combat. So the U.S. would no longer engage in wars of aggression, etc. to protect its daughters. So peace through social engineering. The ERA failed to pass and become a Constitutional amendment. But the proponents took the long view. And here we are today. There are a couple of glitches in their thinking, though. Women have been deployed, WIA, KIA and POWs since 9/11. People are used to it. No problem there. Initially it will be hailed as a great success. Heroes of convenience will be created, like Jessica Lynch and sadly Pat Tillman and even Colin Kelley, WWII's first MOH winner. Then things will unravel, like it did with the women infantrymen in the IDF and like the Israelis, we'll probably back off to what we have had until now. The military always sees assaults from within our government at the conclusion of its wars. The '70's after VN, the late '50's after Korea, the late '40's after WWII, etc. Then we get caught with our pants down and start from scratch. We've always been able to catch up and prevail, in spite of politicians and their agendas, at least as far force capability is concerned . Unfortunately, we have been short on clear victories since 1945 as a direct result of those agendas. I pray that in this upcoming interim period the damage isn't to great to catch up.
Scamilton
02-02-2013, 20:55
And if this change is forced upon SF... How do y'all think our guys would react? As long as all goes well, this type of move would probably be getting finalized around the time I would be hitting a team.
The biggest problem I have with all of this is... I have NEVER met a female soldier who wanted to have a combat MOS.
I don't think people have devolved enough to accept the drafting of females into ground fighting, and I believe stacks of bags containing girls and women-along with incidences of torture and other hardships-would be atrocities to which I hope the Country could never become enured.
Did you ever stop to think this was its intent all along? Let's get rid of the folks we know would oppose us but putting in place programs we know they will leave over? Then we won't have to worry about independant thinkers and we can do what we want at will.
If this ia the cause of one leaving, I would think of the long term consequences of doing so.
Yes I did but I have not received my ration of tin foil. :p:p
Good point. Under Comrade Clinton it seems his downsizing involved getting rid of all thinkers.
Could the current/likely climate be viewed as a means to get rid of "thinking warfighters"?
Further to Afchic's comments.
Could the direct/indirect consequences be completely intentional?
I would think that the horrible cost in lives and broken bodies during the last 12 years has also had the benefit of building an incredible and unprecedented warfighting capability(for some missions, while some other missions may have seen capability attrit due to op tempo/focus).
In some respects, do you think it's possible these changes are like an anti "Wisdom of Crowds" group think issue?
Sort of like a "Stupidity of Crowds", where the general public crowd(at least a decent chunk of it) are quite uncomfortable with warfighters about?
Aren't there examples in history of such things happening?
"War's over" so the warfighters need to go away so that the 95% of people who never served, or had family who served, don't have to feel so uncomfortable about their last 12 years "supporting the troops" at The Mall.
I'm not a fan of conscription because of the multitude of problems with that system of military service, but I wonder if in losing conscription the US(and other nations) has lost a good chunk of it's direct, broad, and deep connection with the US society.
It's certainly not like post WWII and demobilization. Everyone was connected to WWII directly or through family. But now the US military is a far smaller profession of arms in clusters around the country. Many have little to no direct connection any more to the military that serves them.
The good news is that I read recently the US military is the most trusted institution in the US followed by Small Business.
Then I ask myself what policies the US government are implementing and how those policies will likely affect the US military and small business community.
Stiletto11
02-03-2013, 19:52
All the conjecture reminds me if a line in the movie Platoon when Bunny says,"the gooks are putting chemicals in the weed so we become pascifists."
Your post is spot on. Things have been upside down for awhile now and nothing on the horizon looks promising. Feels like Rome chapter two. :(I'd be more concerned with the combat efficiency of the unit or team. A unit or team is only able to move as quickly or fast as its slowest member, The range a team or unit can cover is limited by the endurance level of its weakest member. It's time in the field limited by what its weakest member can carry as a load.
Once again, our PC visions are going to explode in the real world. We don't "profile" people at airport security because that is not PC, so grandma gets sexually violated in the name of protecting the homeland while those whose profiles are consistent with actual threats are waved through security.
I have to agree that this seems to be more than just an exercise in political correctness. If I were on the other side, I would want to make it as uncomfortable for the civilian population as possible, while reducing the effectiveness of my opponent's ability to fight. Combine this idiocy with attempts to disarm US citizens, and you have made this country ripe for destruction from without or within.
medic&commo
02-09-2013, 08:53
Did you ever stop to think this was its intent all along? Let's get rid of the folks we know would oppose us but putting in place programs we know they will leave over?
Once again, our PC visions are going to explode in the real world. We don't "profile" people at airport security because that is not PC, so grandma gets sexually violated in the name of protecting the homeland while those whose profiles are consistent with actual threats are waved through security.
I have to agree that this seems to be more than just an exercise in political correctness. If I were on the other side, I would want to make it as uncomfortable for the civilian population as possible, while reducing the effectiveness of my opponent's ability to fight. Combine this idiocy with attempts to disarm US citizens, and you have made this country ripe for destruction from without or within.
Agreed, it isn't about PC - PC is the means to bring about the desired change(s).
PC fractures us, we become afraid of speaking out because of offending this or that group. It's a way of quietly, slowly taking away our 1st Amendment.
Reducing the effectiveness of our military, the assault on 2nd Amendment, creating a dependent society, altering the educational curriculum,
breaking the fundamental family unit - all have helped turn the US away from the once great nation it was.
m&c