Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal
Interesting perspective by a woman in superb physical condition the reality of physical limits.
She argues very well for the view that most women would not be good candidates for the Marine infantry.*
She does not give any reason for thinking that the Marines should not admit women into the infantry.
*Then again–neither would most men.
Not sure I understand your distinction. Her point as one who had been there and done that re meeting in theatre physical demands as a superlatively strong and fit woman, is that based on her experiences and the existing injury statistics, if equal combat physical demands of Marines (not Army, and the distinction is important) are placed on women and men, women will very likely suffer huge levels of injury and physical breakdown.
Her overall point is that women’s bodies are not going to stand up under that kind of abuse and weight transportation load demands. They will be injured and break. I think that’s reason enough to think twice about placing woman in the Marine infantry.
But I blanked out after the fiftieth military acronym. All she has is anecdotal testimony. Why shouldn’t I, as an informed individual, pigeon-hole her writings as near-sighted and one-dimentional? After all, she’s just a soldier (no offense, but honestly).
Well, re the acronyms she was writing in military magazine to a military audience. She also made note of differing injury rates between the sexes. That women have less muscle and more gracile frames is not an issue for debate, it’s a hard fact. I thought her testimony as to how that played out over time in the field, even for a super fit, gung ho young woman, was compelling.
The issue was not that she was not capable of doing he job initially, the issue is what carrying around the required loads of an infantryman does to the female body over time.
I was an Army combat medic '70/71/72 in Viet Nam, so I pay attention to this stuff. I am not offering my opinion. I am only saying that I read an article by a female Lieutenant (I think that was her rank) that said that in wanting to keep up with and perhaps best her compatriots in ruckmarching, she got stress fractures in both hips. This was in peacetime. I don’t know where I read it. Probably in the Army Times. It might have been thirty or forty years ago.
I don’t particularly like this article, as I found the writing very hard to follow. But I do agree that the points she brought up are compelling. I would love to read this re-written for civilians, maybe with a study or two thrown in. It actually makes me want to do the research and write it myself. That is how interesting it is. Thanks for sharing!
I was Army but I can prolly understand or get someone to translate the Marine code words.
A translator is a good call. I have a brother who is Army SF, and just got back from engineering training (school? duty?). I think I am going to ask him to decipher the article when I see him next.
How do you not understand the distinction between “Not all plants are edible” and “No plants should be eaten”?
According to that article, neither men nor women can handle the physical demands being placed on them. Doesn’t that suggest a different approach is needed?
Her point is that as women(in general) start off with less muscle mass, they have less reserve before it all goes wrong.
Actually, she’s a Marine.
Oh for heavens sake: it’s perfectly true that fewer women than men can handle being in the Marine infantry because of physical limitations. That does not justify not letting the few women who can handle it in.
In other words, what the article is proposing is essentially that the few exceptional women who can do this shouldn’t be allowed to, because of all the other women who can’t do it. Nuttery.
But how do you determine who can do it? Have an ‘indoc’ process for women who want to be in the infantry that they have to pass before they’re admitted?
You can’t just let in any woman who can pass a minimum requirement, and then wash them out if they can’t handle the prolonged, repetitive tasks like humping a pack (or a machine gun, or a mortar, or a box of ammo, or a water can). That would be a disaster as far as unit integrity.
All I know is that she talks about graduating college as a serious athlete, and benching 145 and squatting 200.
Most male high school athletes can probably match those numbers fairly easily, and collegiate athletes can probably do 2x that.
And, anecdotally, I can say that my fat, out of shape 40 year old self pretty much crushes most in-shape women I know when we’re moving things or setting up for events, or anything else that requires both strength and endurance.
They may be able to outrun me, but if it involves unloading 30-50 lb boxes, carrying them some distance, and placing them accurately, I’m like the Energizer bunny compared to them.
The Marines are not in the fairness business. They are in the war fighting business. The very big changes that will be needed to their infantry units can not be justified by the few women who could handle it. Or want to handle it. Those changes will in no way make them a better fighting force. Only the potential to make them worse. It’s easy to take your stand on the outside.
This is the real issue. Our soldiers and marines have to lug around too much crap.
See this post. According to the linked PDF, our paratroopers weigh an average of about 185 lbs, and have to carry around an average load of about 104 lbs for 72 hours. A platoon carries over 100 lbs of batteries alone for the different weapons systems and equipment they use. And the platoons themselves have less personnel because of the force cap, which means more weight to divvy up.
To me the acronyms weren’t that difficult and I speak Army not Marine. If anyone needs a translation let me know. FTR the Marines just let in the first 2 women into IOC (infantry officers course) as an experiment. As far as I know they would have returned to their previously picked career course and not infantry. The experiment was to see if they could pass. The first one failed out of the initial endurance test and the second one dropped out for medical reasons. Just the first two data points of course.
I’ve already seen this article discussed thoroughly on two other boards, and the general consenus is that, at the very least, some of the health problems she is attributing to the physical work and/or to stress are not in fact caused by that at all.
I fail to see how it’s any different from professional football. Well, I will admit that there aren’t concerns about investing so much training in someone who won’t be able to work as long in football, but I think there are a LOT of other things that impact how much service the govn’t gets out of soldiers that would need to be looked at first.
Personally, I don’t believe she’s writing this article about who should be able to serve where. That’s her exucse. It looks more to me like she’s writing it about how no woman could ever outdo her.