Glass ceilings and war don’t mix. Just ask the senior NCO of the Marine Corps who conducted the gender equality integration study, the results of which showed women weren’t meant for the infantry.
But those results don’t seem to matter to the Secretary of the Navy. Come October 1, he plans on allowing females to enter whatever combat roles they want, that is, unless the SECNAV is stopped by several politicians (or the commandant of the Marine Corps) who are currently speaking out hard against him. They have even asked the Secretary of Defense to get involved, which aligns with what I believe—that SECNAV Ray Mabus’ politically correct, myopic view on females in combat roles is a threat to national security.
Sergeant Major Justin LeHew is the senior enlisted advisor with the Marine Corps Training and Education Command. He was tasked with the study to test to see if women Marines should be incorporated into combat roles that have traditionally excluded women, e.g. the Infantry, Recon and Force Recon / MARSOC, Navy SEALs, etc. The study found that women were not cut out for the task. It showed they get hurt more frequently (twice as much), can’t move rucksacks (that means backpacks for non military folk) over obstacles like the guys, and didn’t shoot as well either.
Oh, and they couldn’t do the fireman’s carry like the guys could either, probably because they’re, well, women. That isn’t derogatory. Human beings are a sexually dimorphic species meaning, in our case for the most part, the girls are smaller than guys. It doesn’t mean the guys are better than the girls, just different, and people who ignore this reality in an attempt at attaining “perfect equality”, are destined to mess things up.
The Navy Secretary Mabus recently stated that the study was wrong because it caused these women to underperform in the testing experiments. Personally, I am more inclined to believe that SECNAV Mabus has been drinking too many cups of political agenda Kool-Aid at his Pentagon office every morning.
Mabus had plans prior to the study to include females in the Marine Infantry, Navy SEALs and other units that currently do not allow women. The Secretary said the Marine Corps study began with biased men implementing it, which is a serious charge. I have yet to hear or read any corroborating evidence supporting this claim and, as POW Senator John McCain asked Mabus: Why bother having a study on combat gender integration, if you’re just going to ignore the results?
It should come as no surprise then that SMG LeHew didn’t appreciate SECNAV Mabus’ comments about his testing being bunk and he responded publicly to the Secretary’s comments on Facebook:
“The men (me included) were the most progressive and open minded that you could get… No one went into this with the mentality that we did not want this to succeed.”
“Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy…
“There is nothing gender based about [the test results], it is what it is. You will never see a female Quarterback in the NFL, there will never be a female center on any NHL team and you will never see a female battling in the number 4 spot for the New York Yankees.”
Before I go any further, I want to address anyone who would judge me as a misogynist. I absolutely love my job in law enforcement and I think the female cops I work with are superior. We need women in law enforcement. They have talents and skills guys just can’t bring to the job. Additionally, during my many years in the military have I worked with many talented, capable women. I don’t have a any problem working with women or having women in the military. I just tend to agree with what SMG LeHew stated about women in certain combat roles.
LeHew went on to say having females do everything a male does in the military is a threat to our national security interests because it could cause us to lose battles and lives. I believe that and even if it’s just a risk, if that risk comes about just because we want to be politically correct and indiscriminately inclusive, is it really worth it?
Shoot, we’re so PC now, Obama has even nominated the first openly gay man to be Secretary of the Army. Look, I don’t care if he’s green or purple or what he does in his spare time, but I have to ask, in this political climate, is he really the most qualified person for this position or is his nomination just the stylish thing to do after the SCOTUS’ recent gay marriage decision? The whole women and gays in the military seems faddish to me, which I even wrote about it after two female soldiers graduated from Ranger School.
By the way, SGM LeHew also wrote, “The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry. Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated… [But in real combat, in the infantry] there is no trophy for second place. You perform or die.”
He went on to add this sting, “Listen up folks. Your senior leadership in this country does not want to see America overwhelmingly succeed on the battlefield, it wants to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to [pursue] whatever they want regardless of the outcome on national security.”
I have a good friend who is a former Marine and I know that she has been in firefights and all kinds of hell. I trust women to serve in the military. That’s not the issue. Where is his objectivity and trust in the Marines? But as far as I can see it the facts are on the table and they tell us that women don’t belong in greater combat roles. Frankly, I think Mabus’ great interest in the inclusion of women in greater combat roles has made him short-sighted. Really it’s way past time for a PC revolution, especially when it comes to our national security and winning wars.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the position of Guns.com.