Marine officer loses feminine privilege of childbearing...

This morning I was shocked to read in the Marine Corps Gazzette, "the "professional journal of the U.S. Marines,"

As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.

Did you get that? "It's critical to emphasize that we are not the Army."

Nate Crum is hiding a smile; John Alberson and David, David, and Thomas Crum are laughing; Jim Hogue is suitably rebuked (although he may take some comfort from that bit about "our incredible Army").

But seriously, here's a female Marine officer... exposing the idiocy of the women in combat mania mowing down everything in its path across our Armed Forces. The title of her piece is "Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal!"--her words, not mine. Better to have put it "we are not all created the same." But in  context, the meaning of her words is clear and quite right.

After two combat deployments, one Iraq and the other Afganistan, this poor woman is no longer able to bear children. She writes:

Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

Anyhow, read the article and contact your senator or representative to disband that foolish group of ideologues harming our national defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS).

(Thanks, Daniel M.)

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

I am hiding a smile, but its because I am at work and don't want everyone to look at me thinking I'm crazy (that's a daily failing of mine).

See also: The Overwhelming Maleness of Mass Homicide

The article points out that not just mass-murderers but practically all murderers are men and says we need to work on preventing it by recognizing that fact first and foremost.

I shudder to think of what the "solutions" would be... probably something like Andrew pointed out, I guess.

As a former Marine nothing makes me smile larger than hearing "We are not the Army." 

Now Benjamin, I thought there was no such thing as a former Marine!  :^)   (Semper Fi from a guy whose asthma kept him out of the services)

OK, the thing that seriously strikes me is that almost no one signs their comments in the linked article.  I would dare suggest that women in combat is not the biggest problem they're facing now, but rather that the political situation is such that apparently you can't speak your mind without risking something adverse.

That said, kudos to those who noted that if women want to go into combat, they've got to meet the men's physical requirements.  It also seems, if this woman's experience is normative, that the old training methods from the Romans--20 mile hikes with packs and all--are needed now more than ever before.

One thing that struck me in the Captain's article was that the DACOWITS committee included no active-duty Marines (or any Marines at all, if I remember correctly) -- the people that would be affected by the committee's recommendations.  

As one of the shifty-eyed enlisted swine (one of the less colorful terms of endearment our Drill Sergeant had for us; and, yes, I meant ~less~ colorful), I doubt the Marine Corps' "authenticity" if it is now accomplishing its mission on the backs of women.  

A whole section of our Drill Sergeant's terms of endearment for us included synonyms, cognates, and lexical derivatives of words for women (women, ladies, sissies, girlies, and all the coarser and more profane terms in the same lexical universe).  The power of these terms of endearment depended on the fact that we who were named with them were, in fact, biologically male.  It wouldn't "work," you see, to call a true girl girlie, would it?  

I shudder to think what the Drill Sergeants are calling the biologically female recruits at boot camp!  Or, perhaps, the DACOWITS weenies have mandated that the Drill Sergeant shall now affirm his affection by calling the recruits Deplorable Persons or Disreputable Individuals.  

That must be it.  And the whole lot of them are Marines In Name Only, MINOs.

I just have to wonder what drives women to want to do this in the first place.   I wonder how many fathers are pushing their teen-aged daughters to "be all that they can be" and making them feel that they have to push the gender limits to please him.  They should be protecting their daughters (and our military) from this kind of foolishness.   

Blessings,

Nancy

This whole situation reminds me of Tom Sawyer. If you want someone to do your chores for you, make them think whitewashing the fence is a privilege; make them pay you for it.

If you're a lazy male who doesn't want to do the messy work of defending his country, convince women that it's their right to do your duty, that they should be clamoring to go to war in your place.

Although they didn't join the Marines, I know a couple of young women who enlisted in the Air Force and the Navy for what I suspect are the same reasons why many young men do. One reason was to obtain money for college and the ability to take college classes (paid by their branch of the service) while in the military. Another was that they were unsure about what they wanted to do with their lives. They had tried jobs requiring a high-school diploma and were less than challenged mentally and underwhelmed with the paychecks. They tried community college and/or a university and couldn't figure out what to major in. They both wanted to get married and have children but had no prospects. They hoped to travel and see more of the world than just the metro area they grew up in. They also hoped they might learn a marketable skill while in the military. 

... but he was a Army draftee at the time of the Korean conflict who wasn't sent to Korea, but was assigned to a "model" base in West Germany used to train military units from many countries devastated after WWII. Because he thought he had been treated so well by the military he wanted to become career military and would have done so if our mom hadn't been dead-set against against it and he honored her wishes because he knew how difficult it would have been for her. 

Having said that my dad told all of my siblings that nothing would have made him happier than if one or more of would of us had at least joined the military and considered a military career. For his three daughters, I' m sure he was talking about the Air Force or the Navy, but never asked. He also asked me to consider ROTC because I was studying for a B.S. degree and getting the scholarship would have given me many more options for college than he and mom would have been able to afford.

To be sure, all of his children graduated from high school from 1972 - 1978, with my brother graduating from high school at a time when being sent to Vietnam wasn't likely. And my dad was hardly what you would call an egalitarian or a feminist. There were many fewer combat support or combat MOS assignment open to women, so he had little reason to believe his daughters would be in harm's way.

My dad is now is in the presence of our Lord in heaven, but if I could ask him why he would considered having one or of my sisters joining the military, I think the last thing he would have said would have been, "To be all that you can be."

I have a [step] sister who enlisted in the Marines while still a minor, without parental consent, etc. Unfortunately that is allowed, despite that in no other situation would a minor's signature and consent be accepted as constituting a binding contract; the gov/mil excuse is that they just don't take them until they turn 18, but when they do they aren't permitted to change their minds, nor is a new signature or agreement required, so of course this means it's permitting minors to form contracts outside parental consent. 

That said, from rather extraordinary experience and insight from people involved, the idea that the military is any longer for defense of the country (which is usually said inclusive of the semantic component 'the people') as opposed to an elite few and their governing interests, promotions of their ideologies, and maintenance of power, seems quaint Sir Huck, which I don't say as an insult but with sadness, and the Constitutional illiteracy (coupled with about as much care for that document and the philosophies and respects it represents) among the forces, much like the Biblical illiteracy of so-called evangelicals, only ensures a tighter grip of those few and the enslavement by threat of force for the rest. 

I saw Full Metal Jacket many years ago; the actor who played the drill sergeant had been a Marine Drill Instructor in real life, meaning much of the invective was ad libbed. Was your time in training as bad as that?

Anyone who thinks that is the entirety of what is going on doesn't understand.  And spoken like someone accustomed to being protected by others.

Add new comment