E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Luke Sharrett / Redux Pictures file
A Marine second lieutenant hangs on an obstacle course during the Marine Corps' Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Va. on July 6. Beginning in September, women officer volunteers will participate in the course as part of a study to gauge the feasibility of allowing female Marines to serve in more extensive combat roles.
Come September, a small group of young female Marines will break through one of the last bastions of macho in the U.S. military. They’ll be the first class of female officers to take part in the grueling Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Va., a test of both physical fitness and mental will that prepares the corps’ future platoon leaders.
All of these women will be volunteers, and their training will be closely watched. The new coed class has sparked suggestions that such training could lead to integrating women in the Marine infantry, with some saying they “would make excellent grunts.”
But at least one female Marine officer, a former college hockey player and battle-tested engineering unit commander still on active duty, says placing women in infantry units is just a bad idea.
Courtesy of USMC
Capt. Katie Petronio says women have no place in the Marine Corps infantry.
“Infantry is one of those fields we need to leave alone.” Marine Capt. Katie Petronio told msnbc.com.
Petronio was just back from Afghanistan last year — where she worked shoulder to shoulder with infantrymen — when she heard people arguing that it was a violation of rights to restrict women from combat. The rights advocates missed the point, she said.
“It would just keep me up at night when I’d heard these bleeps or opinions,” Petronio said. “I felt if I didn’t do anything about it that my silence was consent and if this would’ve have passed, I wouldn’t have done my due diligence in getting my point across.”
She was compelled to write what became a widely cited article in the privately published Marine Corps Gazette provocatively titled “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.”
The article details her personal experiences during deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, making the case that the physical rigors of infantry are not for women.
The Pentagon has changed some of its rules. Women will be permitted in crucial and dangerous jobs closer to the front lines. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
“Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations,” she wrote, “and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?”
Even though she was a standout Bowdoin athlete and could bench press 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds, was ranked 4th out of a class of 52 in Officer Candidate School and excelled at Marine Corps fitness tests, Petronio's deployment in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan took a brutal toll on her 5-foot-3-inch body.
Related: Pentagon's new rules deploy women closer to combat
In Iraq, she developed severe restless leg syndrome, and a spine injury pressed on her nerves. In Afghanistan she was the senior Marine in her engineering unit working 16-hour days for weeks at a time building patrol bases.
Courtesy of USMC
Marine Corps Capt. Katie Petronio, right, poses with children at Patrol Base Mateen, Afghanistan.
"By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change,” she wrote. “My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions.” She lost 17 pounds on an already lean body.
Her article has supporters and detractors, but Petronio said she’s just relating her own experience to avoid any sort of blanket policy that could end up putting lives in peril.
“People just think I’m just closed minded and I’m a sexist and I’m not looking to expand opportunities for females,” Petronio told msnbc.com. “And that is absolutely not true. There are a lot of jobs in the Marine Corps right now that could be open to females. My big point is there needs to be a distinct line when it comes to the infantry.”
The decades-long debate over changing roles of women in the military reached a turning point in 2011 when Congress directed the Pentagon to take a hard look at policies that restrict female service members. In February, the Defense Department relaxed some restrictions, moving women closer to combat, but a fuller review of combat jobs is under way.
It turns out that though women have fought and died in every American war, and many female troops performed with valor under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a lack of data to back any service-wide decision on which close-to-combat jobs would ultimately be open to them.
“We needed some data, some good recent Marine Corps data,” Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine Corps spokeswoman, told msnbc.com. “There’s data from other services and other countries but we’re a little different.”
Even now, about 44 women across the Marine Corps are serving in jobs normally closed to women as part of the research program, Haney said.
The Iowa National Guard undergoes "Female Engagement Team" training prior to deploment to Afghanistan. Soldiers prepare themselves for cultural encounters with Afghan men and women played by actors in this video.
But whether women will join the ranks of grunts in the future is unclear.
“This has a lot do to with physical standards,” Haney said. “This is the Marine Corps. This isn’t JV. We've got to make sure we’re doing the right thing for the institution and the individual.”
As one female Marine told msnbc.com, "No one questions why there aren't any females in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. Olympic athletes are the elite of the elite. No one questions why the women compete against women and men against men. Those are great sports and achievements. But lives and missions aren't on the line. In our world, if you move slower one day, you don't get bumped off the medal stand, you could die or get someone else killed."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- No charges for mother who abandoned severely disabled daughter at bar
- Sister gets text: 'The girl with this phone is dead'
- Drop the 'i' word? Debating the term 'illegal immigrant'
- San Bernardino becomes 3rd Calif. city in 2 weeks to file for bankruptcy protection
- Video: Teacher goes airborne on police pursuit
Leave a Comment:
There will always be women who will fight and fight harder to do it because people tell them they can't. It's just the way some people are. There is great satisfaction in proving others wrong. But the decision should not be based on feelings, or abstract notions of fairness or equality; whichever way the decision ultimately goes.
Nothing in this article indicates she is remotely qualified to make this conclusion. This would require a comprehensive study to even start to make this statement, one way or the other.
It is a shame the way Emily's List etc abuse the women concept " that they can do anything" [which is a myth and harmful] Women are emotional and are to be protected and not used for combat. Look at the poor souls in the Muslim countries who don't even stand up to their husbands before they shoot them in public. If you look at what kind of women are representing us in Congress, such as Nancy P. Kate Sebelius, Boxer, Walters and many other unqualified ProChoice Democrats, they are not working out and it was a diservice to our country by those that voted them in. No, I don't want females on the line but rather in-line.
Katie Petronio seems like one wonderful, reasonable person.
In Afghanistan one goes up and down hills, mountains wearing body armor weighing 45 lbs and then there is gear, ammo, weapons, with grunts carrying often over 100 plus pounds. This goes on all day and for month after month. Response times must be instantaneous-that is what Parris Island and Pendleton teach recruits.
Just look at what grunt paratroopers with 82nd Airborne carry on their jumps and then proceed to mission.
In Vietnam grunt units lived for months in bush with little standdown. Women should tote old 27 lb machine guns and then add ammo to it and also carry mortars, base plate, tubes, all in terrific heat and humidity of Vietnam (and mideast is hotter but not as humid). Long hair will get tangled and matted. Weight loss will be heavy. A few shrapnel wounds in the lower belly might mean the death knell for having babies some day.
There is a reason for testosterone- witness athletes, East German females sprinters winning (cheating with steroids) everything in Olympics many years ago.
I don't see how women can make it in infantry. I have no resentment or bias but I don't see how. I am in my 60s. it was tough enough for men carrying ammo, machine guns, mortar parts, and so many other things. Hand to hand fighting is not uncommon and may also come down to that last bit of strength, adrenaline, and testosterone.
I can see it now.
"This is my rifle, THIS IS MY GUN!"...
LOL!...
Alpha One Actual: check out the pregnancy rate in the 3rd Infantry Division at the start of the Iraq invasion in 2003. Pregnancies occurred with both enlisted and officers. It did get them out of the inhumane boredom of sitting in Kuwait and Iraq for months and also they got out of combat. They missed the intense heat, dust, depleted uranium being scattered allover. The numbers were high but press was told not to print that.
We should not even have MEN in the infantry!! All war should be outlawed. As a world we should not be tolerating war, we are one world and one species. Oh and by the way I do not believe in "Spaceship Earth" Earth is analogous to a SPACE STATION.
Stupid idea, stupid arguments, and a waste of time. Let's move on to something more productive, sensible, and worthy of intelligent discussion.
Hey Paul,
He'd likely mutiny with most of the Marine Corps to put a stop to it. Semper Fi.
It is INCREDIBLY STUPID to put women into the KILLING machine - but it certainly makes it more interesting for all the poor blokes sucked into the murdering business for our government.
I was almost convinced until I read the lady is 5 ft 3 in.
I did a year of garbage/recycle collection at 5 ft 5 in, and, it wasn't the gender that was the problem, it was the size of the body. I've since seen many females that could more easily do the same work I did that year because of their size (ie taller than me, some by half a foot), and, a man my size can do the same work much longer.
So, with physically rigorous jobs, it may behoove us to begin looking at the actual physical size of the body relative to gender. I can say I think that allowing the younger females to use their physically bigger bodies these days is important. Some women may want to consider the Skilled Trades...but if others are drawn to infantry and have the physical size and strength to do so, let them.
Is this argument ever going to end? When the US military extricated Manuel Noriega from Panama, most of the fighting was done my Military Police--and lots of those folks were women soldiers. People Magazine interviewed the MP Commander about the women's performance in combat roles. You know what he said? Those women did the job admirably. Yes, he admitted; women perform fewer push-ups and they run slower, but guess what? "We don't do push-ups or run much in combat". All soldiers are able to perform at the minimum standard, and all soliders have limits to their endurance and strength. If you're going to serve; you should be allowed to serve in whatever capacity is required to complete the mission. I hate stupid people.
Maybe I view war times differently then others. But this is a very interesting subject for sure. Can physical strength alone be the common denominator as to whether anyone should be allowed to be in a fighting position?
Would anyone say that a male teenager were to be better in such a position compared to an older female? I just could not answer a question like that because I think war is won by strategy, not by physical strength.
A single leader when using the correct strategy will not worry about physical power or weaponry. A smarter way to fight, in my mind, has nothing to do with how many weapons you may carry on you.
War strategy is very fascinating and it has been shown in history that the smarter way to fight often was not accompanied by more weaponry or more physical strength.
Furthermore, immigrating from a country that was in the center of world war II, testimony from average citizens, whether they were female, male, or children that were not on the war front, show that regardless they too were in the war.
The same thing goes for Vietnam. If I understand correctly, wasn't there but surely have learned about the many testimonies from soldiers that returned, average citizens, women and children over there were soldiers for their country. Did they not await American soldiers to ambush them in their villages? Did they not provide weapons to family members so they could fight American soldiers? Did they not turn the Vietnam war into hell for the United States? A war that so many are still reeling from? Those women and children were soldiers, despite a lack of uniform. Do you think anyone in those villages asked those women and children if it was right to fight? Hell no. I think that surely proves that women and even children are more than capable to fight in a war and depending on the situation anyone of them could outsmart a soldier that is fully clad in an expensive uniform with impressive weapons.
All families that had to survive in the two different worldwars were ready to fight, physically too. That is what war is all about. I guess I really do not look at war as most would. But in a war whether you should, he should, she should: well that question is simply non existent because in war all rules are non existent. You survive or you don't and the odds sure as hell do not take into account whether you are male or female.
Once again the pundits put the cart before the horse. Women have been serving in Combat since World War I, and in direct front line combat since World War II. Only recently have we lost much of the pretense, mainly due to the nature of modern warfare where the linnear battlefield has disappeared and we are now in the 360 degree battle. But while evolution of actual combat roles have proceeded, our policies have not. The current policy of the U.S. military is still stuck in the 1940's. A look at the Selective Serivice website clearly demonstrates this in the stated policy...
"WHO MUST REGISTER
Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service."
If we are to be truly all inclusive, why only males? and why only 18-25?
There should be a requirement for all service age people in the U.S. to register for military service.
I am a retired veteran, and I am eligible for recall to active service until age 65, current mlitary regulations allow service from age 18 to 55. So at a minimum, all U.S. reidents, from age 18 to 55 should be required to register for selective service, including females, and politicians, every member of Congress, and occupants of the White House should be eligible for the Draft as well.
This is not just about the nature of service of volunteers, it is about the duty of all people availing themsleves of the prosperity of the U.S. to accept responsibility for the security of the nation as well.
Interesting perspective from the Captain based on personal experience. However, I believe we should go back to the draft and require all to give back to the country either in the military or some type of public service. America is not a free lunch country. Israel and a host of other countries teach their women to learn weapon and combat skills. Our country needs for everyone male and female in America to have survival and combat skills and service must be mandatory.
NOBODY that has reduced levels of physical performance training should be allowed to serve in the infantry or special ops units...in any branch of the service! Maybe things have changed since I served, but I'm of the impression that women still do modified push-ups and chin-ups. Until the standards have been equalized across the services for the sexes, women that cannot perform to(and men that cannot perform to) a unified standard should be disqualified based purely on their performance or lack thereof. One of my chief complaints would be a person's ability to drag an injured soldier out of harm's way! Until one can hump the weight, do ALL the jobs equally, shoot the shot, and walk the walk they should not be permitted to perform the task. Women fly machines, but can they perform when the machine is grounded? An overall, equalized set of standards needs to exist, with job determination made at the conclusion of physical training! On another subject that is taboo...I would not like serving on the front lines with a gay male. I'm not concerned from a sexual standpoint, but from a safety standpoint. I don't think it fair to the non-gays to subject them to possible HIV infection from a more dangerous lifestyle. Blood gets spilled/splattered...sh!!t happens.
What I'm hearing from this woman is "I couldn't make it, therefore no woman can" which is a really common sexism a lot of women have. I know I'm too physically and emotionally weak for the front lines, but it's the job of basic training to weed out people like me. They do it to men too so I don't see why as long as you keep the standards the same it won't matter. It's true women are typically more physically weak than men and the strongest woman in the world is probably weaker than the strongest man. But the 31st strongest woman is probably stronger than the 100th strongest man. There's no reason to ban women because they typically can't cut it. Just keep it open for the ones who can. If that means there's only one woman in the marines who will cut it, that doesn't matter. Just set baseline standards instead of "women standards" and "men standards" and this isn't even a discussion. It's not equality to toss women into infantry just because women aren't in there, but it's also not equality to deny women who are above and beyond set physical and mental standards for their field and are equal to their male counterparts the ability to do what they're meant to do.
A random man and woman off the street probably aren't equal in anything. But when you draw a line in the sand and say "This side of the line are people who are infantry material" you can't use gender as a factor. If a man is too emotionally and physically weak for infantry, they don't become infantry. Why should it be different for women? There will be way less women on "this side of the line" but it's not like there's no woman in the world good enough or better qualified than some men to do this. People need to stop thinking of "women" as in "my sister/mom/girlfriend = all women" and think of them as people with indoor plumbing. Some are stupid. Some are smart. Some belong in the kitchen. Some belong shooting terrorists. Same as a man, genderqueer, transgender...whatever. Stop thinking what is culturally normal is true for everyone. Or what is taught through culture is unchanging and a fact. Even if you could definitively say that 80% of women are raised to be too stupid and dependent and physically/emotionally weak to do anything but be a homemaker, teacher, or "medical assistant", that would still leave a minority of smart, independent, hardened she-hulks. And that's way more black and white than reality ever is. Does any of this make sense to anyone or am I just a silly deluded feminazi ideologue who just needs to realize that women are not as good as men, accept it, and then I'm a good girl who knows her place?
Can't we just send robots and be done with the argument?
I would have to give this woman officer high marks for being so forthcoming and candid. And I would be willing to bet she is a terrific Marine and human being. Nice to see someone who is not just a yes person and goes along with the tide. All organizations need someone with the guts she displayed here. She would be a great addition to the boardrooms of America that are fraught with too many good old boys. An no, I am not a woman writing this.
First, I just want to say that I RESPECT and admire any THANK any person, male or female, that has ever been deployed and faced death, or almost worse, the loss of limbs or the deep emotional scars that never leave you. I know I could not do it mentally to I am in awe.
My first concerns as a female about women in the infantry are along the line of things like she described; trouble with slowing down, getting on an off vehicles quickly, etc. and that those things might put the other members of their unit at risk, BUT couldn't that (the muscle atrophy) just as easily happen to men in the same situations and conditions? I would think so and it seems she thinks so, just not as QUICKLY. I think the info garnered from the females volunteering will help but physical things as she described about muscle atrophy in males vs females need more scientific studies before this trial is going to change things.
If the standards were entirely equal, then it would (mostly) make sense for women to be allowed into the infantry as it's not just about being able to carry your ruck - you have to be able to carry your ruck *and* your buddy. It would have to be across the board in everything from combatives to PT.
Make it like all the SF boys do; if you don't meet Navy Seals standards you don't get to be a Navy Seal. If you don't meet Marine Recon standards, you don't get to be Marine Recon. If you don't meet Ranger standards, you don't get to be a Ranger, and so on. Well... except as a woman you can't join any of those anyway - but same diff.
Personally, I as a woman wouldn't even want to risk the 'maybes' that have been raised. I couldn't and wouldn't pursue something that would potentially endanger the life of the guys whose backs I'm supposed to have. It's not a matter of 'equality' for me at all. It's a matter of would I ever in a million years want a hypothetical fellow soldier to in any way, shape or form act in a manner other than how he's been trained simply because I'm a female? No. Can't say that I would. And because that is a likely hypothetical, I'd never want to join a direct combat unit.
Equal means equal. If women are in the military they should be able to be in all positions of the military. To have anything else is discriminatory to both men and women!
I deployed in support of an Infantry unit as FET, I carried the THOR , radio , latter whatever needed on dailey patrols. We had no showers, were in combat situations and wore the same gear/ammo they had to...I came home fine, in fact I run 35-40 miles a week more than ever before and in better shape ...oh and Im 5 foot 1 inch, 107 pounds..please dont try to speak for me because I actually did it, didnt just speculae on everyone else. If you dont belive me please I invite you to ask the male Marine who deployed with me if you need them to validate it for you...any other excuses??
Reading through these comments it is easy to tell who has infantry experience, an idea of infantry experience, and those who do not. Women are incredible. They have talents and abilities men cannot match and the opposite is true. Men can do things women cannot and should not and again, the opposite is true. That is not sexist. That is reality of nature. I hope common sense prevails before lives are needlessly lost.
The majority of women do not belong in infantry. For those who can make it there, I'm sorry, but this is the military and there are no case-by-case exceptions when it comes to protecting lives.
I'm a former LCpl 0311/8152 w combat service -- lets get right to the bottom line here..
Whether or not they can do the job is a side issue..
If you put women into infantry combat, and they wind up captured, chances are very good that they'll be subjected to multiple rapes...
Is that what you WMs really want ? Is it worth the risk just to make the point that you can do anything a male can do ?
Personally, I think any WM that wants infantry combat should have her head examined.
Semper Fi.