Three Women Become First Female Marines to Serve Ground Combat Roles

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C — Three women have become the first female Marines to be permitted to serve ground combat roles—a move that some Christians have stated is contrary to God’s created order.

The women, who reported on Thursday to the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment at Camp LeJuene in North Carolina, will serve as rifleman, machine gunner and mortar Marine. Their names have not been released.

Several female Marines in leadership roles were to be placed in the unit to help with acclimation.

“That leadership consists of a logistics officer, motor transportation officer and a wire chief,” 1st Lt. John McCombs told reporters. “They will have been in place for at least 90 days prior to the first female infantry Marines arriving to the unit. This process ensures the Marine Corps will adhere to its standards and will continue its emphasis on combat readiness.”

While women have been able to serve in military support roles in various capacities, since 1994, they have been prohibited from being assigned to front-line ground combat. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced in 2013 prior to his departure that he had planned to make the change to bring about a “fully inclusive military.”

In December 2015, new Secretary Ash Carter announced that the U.S. Department of Defense would open up all combat roles to women for the first time in the nation’s history.

“They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALS, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men,” he said.

  • Connect with Christian News

But some said that the idea violates God’s created order and His design for men to be the warriors and protectors.

“Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male individually, from twenty years old and above—all who are able to go to war in Israel,” Numbers 1:2-3 outlines.

“Shame on us. Shame on us for treating women with such disrespect,” Michael Farris, a constitutional attorney and chancellor of Patrick Henry College in Virginia opined on the matter. “Shame on us for denying that God created men and women with genuine physical differences that matter.”

“Shame on us if we continue to pursue a form of radical feminism that denies the intrinsic dignity of women,” he stated. “A nation that sends its women to war is a nation of cowardly men.”

CNN notes that President-elect Donald Trump had Tweeted a comment in 2013 that suggested he had concerns about both men and women serving together.

“26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military—only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?” he asked.

But Trump outlined to reporter Chris Cuomo in 2015 that he doesn’t believe women should be removed from the Armed Forces altogether.

“Would you let women fight in the military, in the rangers and all the elite groups?” Cuomo asked.

“Yeah, I guess the answer is yes because they’re really into it, and some of them are really, really good,” Trump replied, but said he would also wish to obtain the opinions of military generals.

Gen. James Mattis, who Trump has selected to serve as the next secretary of defense, has questioned whether women are suitable for carrying out the “intimate killing” required in ground combat. According to Military.com, he has also outlined that he is worried about “eros” in the trenches, opining that it is not wise to put “healthy young men and women together and we expect them to act like little saints.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Oboehner

    Putting social experiments over military success…

    • ConCern

      I think Israel is doing the same…

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Israel can’t help because she is out-numbered by her massive enemies at the ratio of 1:800 on Planet Earth. USA is not out-numbered that much.

        • james blue

          So your standard is negotiable?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, if America’s enemies swell into 300 billion humans. Otherwise, making women and sexually confused individuals will only weaken US military. If a nation makes women combatants out of boredom while killing their babies, what are they trying to protect, really?

      • Sks_55557

        The Israelis are typically misunderstood regarding being some sort of an example. According to Israeli army statistics, although 92 percent of roles in the military are open to women, less than three percent of women in the army serve in combat roles – up from one percent a decade ago.

        But Col. Talya Lankri, the army’s pioneering woman battalion commander, says Israeli society is not ready for women’s integration into combat roles. In an essay in the Israeli army journal Ma’archot, Lankri said only 14 percent of all the women who had gone through the selection process had completed their assignments as combat soldiers. “In my opinion, the army – which deals with complex tasks during routine times and even more complex ones during wartime – cannot afford to devote energy to topics not connected with meeting its main purpose,” she wrote.

        “Besides, Israeli society in general and the army in particular are not ripe for the integration of female combat troops in the attack ranks. Therefore, … , it would be wise not to integrate female combat troops into the attack ranks – certainly not in mixed units where they serve alongside men,” Lankri wrote in the article, as cited by Haaretz.

    • james blue

      One of the arguments used against the Tuskegee Airmen

      • Sks_55557

        Comparing gender to race is misguided, I think. One hears it a lot. Race, religion, ethnicity … it’s all a bias that is not supported by empiricism. It’s a cultural attitude.

        Instead, gender is comparable to age. The only valid discriminators in society regarding performance are gender and age. We do not accept applicants for certain jobs who are under or over a particular age; and many professions (pilots, judges, surgeons, etc) have mandatory retirement ages, based on the very real limitations of age. Certainly, a 59 year-old airline pilot who turns 60 one day is not suddenly incapable. Also, many experienced pilots in their 60’s are more capable than many 30 year-olds. In that same vein, some women can indeed out perform some men some of the time at some tasks.

        Age discrimination is a bias too; but unlike other biases it’s based in validity. Sure, exceptions could reasonably be made based on individuals if we were focused solely on fairness. But there are some professions where the limitations and liabilities of age — and also gender — have such dire consequences as to prohibit taking chances in the spirit of fairness.

        Military combat is among these. The purpose of a military is to protect the nation and the military personnel, not to provide career paths or experiences for someone on a “personal journey” to test herself.

        • james blue

          I didn’t compare gender to race, I compared the argument.

          • Sks_55557

            Huh….? You compared the argument to what…?

          • james blue

            The argument he made with the same argument made against the airmen.— “Putting social experiments over military success.”

          • Sks_55557

            And I’m observing that that argument against black airmen, based on race, is a false equivalent to the argument against female combat troops. To reiterate, arguments based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. is entirely a cultural bias, with no validity empirically. Gender, like age, does indeed have a valid empirical basis.

            The Tuskegee Airmen were an all-black group that proved themselves as airmen. As an experiment, no lives were risked but their own. To follow that thinking, we would expect all-female combat units — fighting men, not other women — to perform as well as or better than all-male units. To experiment with integrating women into male units puts the men’s lives at risk. It’s not simply cultural bias to blame for that.

            And we would not expect a fighting unit of, say, all 60 year old men or all 15 year old boys to do as well either. Age matters, as does gender. That’s how it’s different from the argument against black airmen: that is, it’s not simply cultural bias.

            Nor is cultural bias the reason the top Track & Field high school boys in each state outperform the top US Track & Field women. In fact, Olympic women’s teams (soccer, basketball, hockey…) play male high school teams in order to improve for playing against other women. And the boys often win, — check out Waroad, MN boys hockey vs. the US Women’s Olympic Team, 2006. No, bias is not the explanation here either.

            Different from the men, women troops who are placed in combat zones have more injuries than do men, — not from battle, but from the rigors of simply keeping up with the men. They’re severe, long-lasting injuries to the spine, joints, bones, etc. And they suffer higher rate of PTSD then men, — this, from being in just combat-support roles. That’s not bias, it’s hard data.

            That’s how the comparison of gender to race is misguided, referring to the Tuskegee Airmen.

          • james blue

            It was argued that blacks were inferior in mental capacity and physical agility.

          • Sks_55557

            I know. You keep dwelling on the obvious. That’s how it’s different, — there was no reason to believe that about blacks except for cultural bias. That’s how it’s different from the same argument about gender, where there is a valid, measurable, acknowledged difference in the abilities required for combat. That’s why the argument against women in combat should not be likened to the one about black pilots, but instead about age, which is similarly valid, measurable and acknowledged.

            Cheee ……

          • james blue

            No it’s not true. You are putting forth a cultural preconception.

            A female who trains the same as a male of equal size is every bit as capable. Just as some men are not as strong as others some females are not as strong as some men, but some females are stronger than other men.

            Women and men should have the same physical requirements, they should not be judged by their gender.

          • Sks_55557

            You’ve jumped subjects. Race is not comparable to gender, for reasons I’ve repeatedly articulated. To re-re-re-repeat, it’s not just a cultural preconception, it’s based in data from both observation and experimentation.

            And it’s not true that women and men of the same size are equally strong. Taking a typical male and female the same age, the same size, the same level of fitness: on average the men are 50% stronger than women in upper body strength, 30% stronger in lower body strength, and 100% stronger in hand grip, — that’s PER POUND. Factor in further that most men are about 30% larger than most women, and the difference in strength becomes more pronounced.

            Passing tests does not turn a woman into a man. I don’t know if you read what I’ve posted, but the injury rate among women is several times that of men just from keeping up. Saying that if someone passes a test they should have the job is a civilian concept; and outside the context of the military, it makes sense. That’s a civilian mindset better suited to, say, a state highway maintenance crew, where the women members of a crew don’t cost lives; the crew simply does not perform as well as other crews. (We’ve seen this performance difference demonstrated in military experiments with mixed-gender teams. And that was just TEAM outcomes, where men picked up the slack, not individual performance; a better test would have been all-female teams vs all-male teams.)

            This “equal opportunity” mindset can be taken further: we could make ships, tanks and aircraft handicapped accessible; and not all military jobs require sight, or hearing, or all four limbs. Throughout history, women, teenagers, old men, guys with a leg or an eye missing have all participated valiantly in combat. And currently, there are legions of “child soldiers” being used in some third-world countries. None of that makes our incorporating women, children, elderly and handicapped into our own military a good idea.

          • james blue

            I bet there are plenty of women of comparable size to you who could out lift you and kick your butt.

          • Sks_55557

            Again, off-subject. Doing that to me is not the standard. The standard is to be able to do that to adult, male enemy combatants.

            What your saying is like my questioning weather people who are nearly blind should be allowed to drive city buses. If I say i don’t think they should, you’d say, “I bet there are a lot of half-blind people who can drive better than you.” So what….? That’s not the standard.

  • This style 10/6

    God’s “created order” is steadily being eroded in western democracies, fortunately for women, gays and other groups disadvantaged by biblical morality.

  • Just a Commenter

    I understand there are many different view points, supported with solid arguments, surrounding this topic. In response to the question, “Can women physically do this kind of work?”, a person’s given answer depends on how much he/she believes a generalization speaks for every individual of that particular gender. There are females who have the drive and the dedication to reach gender-neutral standards. There are already some who have proven they can. In response to the question, “Does this violate God’s created order?”, a person’s given answer depends where on the complementarian-egalitarian spectrum he/she falls under. The presence of females in the military does not mean that men aren’t doing their jobs; it simply means that there are additional people who want to contribute their skills. A person isn’t two-dimensional. Only because someone is taking on additional roles doesn’t mean they are neglecting their own unique roles. People have different skills and talents, and it would be waste not to utilize them to their full potential.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Don’t. It’s as barbaric as sending under-age boys to battlefields for combat. What are the men doing? Playing games? Such world is not a world worthy to be protected by any kind of combatants. USA has over 300 million people. Make men combatants. Women should keep chastity for marriage, dress properly, and raise children instead of doing man’s works; that contributes to the national security far more. Women doing men’s jobs also feminize boys and men and increase men’s violence against girls and women. Men should not consider women equal( the physical and emotional strength is different) that way but protect women and children always and everywhere.

  • ‘Three women become first female marines to serve ground combat roles…’ and here was I thinking the first female marines would be giraffes or maybe teapots. The first part of the title of this piece is superfluous; of course ‘female’ marines would be women. Sheesh.

  • Nidalap

    It seems to be a losing proposition to lower the physical standards of your own military while your enemies do not…