
Guest post by Victoria Manning | Restoration News
It’s imperative to adopt American military policies that create the strongest and most powerful forces in the world.
Fact-based impartial research not biased emotional responses should be the foundation of military decision-making. Women should be included in any military job for which they can meet the same merit-based standards required of men.
In a Defense Department document from 1998, leadership indicated there were no plans to consider ground combat for women. Yet there were experiments underway that same year to test integration of women in Marine Corps combat ranks through training in the Camp LeJeune area.
Restoration News interviewed a retired Marine infantry officer with firsthand knowledge of early experimentation with integrated male-female combat training.
In 1998, the Marine Corps placed females at Camp Geiger, North Carolina for integration in Marine Combat Training. At times, platoon size reached 100 entry-level female Marines—3 times the size of all-male platoons. When the company was in the field, male and female platoons would coordinate training together.
The leadership was thrust into a no-win situation with heaps of problems.
After being in the field for 12 days, many female Marines developed urinary tract infections due to a lack of hygiene.
Leadership also discovered prostitution in the ranks—with female Marines accepting money for sex with male Marines while in the field.
This failed experiment was not widely publicized.
In 2015, the Marine Corps conducted new research to determine how mixed-gender ground combat teams performed against all-male teams.
The mixed teams fell far behind in important tasks such as simulated casualty evacuations—which are a matter of life or death in real-world situations.
Data collected during the experiment showed women falling far behind men in a variety of infantry courses.
The only test women were rated the same as men was the Artillery Cannon Crewman Course.
The Infantry Officer Course graduated 71 percent of male participants, yet no women were able to complete it.

Research also found that women were 2 to 6 times more likely to be injured in training than men on tasks that men could accomplish easily.
Years ago, I completed a 100-kilometer team adventure race with 4 male marines. While I was easily able to keep pace with them on the cardio aspect of the race, there were times I relied on the men to help me through strength events. Fortunately, it was a civilian activity and not a life-or-death combat situation. Even though I was in top physical shape, it was obvious the men were naturally stronger. I would’ve been a liability in combat.
It’s imperative that women stay a valued part of the American military. We bring different talents and strengths than men and contribute to the success of the nation’s national defense.
But standards should not be lowered for anyone (male or female) to qualify for challenging jobs. There should be one standard based on the requirements and skills necessary to excel at the job at hand—no exceptions or waivers.
The Dempsey Rule
Democrats belittled Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth for his concerns about lowering standards in the military for women in combat roles. Hegseth’s focus is on our military capabilities, and he is rightly concerned about gender-based double standards because it’s a threat to combat readiness.
Despite negative research findings, the Quantico Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course opened up to women in 2016.
By 2022, only 12 women had successfully completed the 13-week course, despite standards being lowered in 2018.
The changes included a reduced number of evaluated hikes and the removal of the Combat Endurance Test (CET). The CET included long endurance marches carrying heavy loads and rugged land navigation. It was intended to weed out the weak but was turned into an optional task to increase female recruitment.
This lowering of standards became known as the Dempsey Rule, after Gen. Martin Dempsey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who advocated for reducing requirements to help women artificially succeed.
In 2016, a Rasmussen survey found only 38 percent of female voters believed women should be required to register for the selective service (draft). Yet, a 2016 poll found 74 percent favorability of women serving in combat roles. That seems to be a double standard. If women have the same duties as men, the draft should be applied equally.
While women should be highly respected for their service and attributes they bring to a successful military, women who weaken combat readiness should not be chosen simply for the sake of diversity.
Military requirements should be job specific with the same requirements for those jobs no matter a person’s sex.
To build and maintain the world’s greatest military, it must be merit based.
–
Victoria Manning is a Senior Investigative Researcher for Restoration News specializing in education freedom, abortion, and immigration, and the author of Behind the Wall of Government Schools. Victoria served 8 years as an elected school board member with a master’s degree in law. She also brings the perspective of a military spouse and mother to her reporting.
Well said. Has anyone noticed, while trans men entered women’s sports, zero trans women(as far as I know) entered male sports?! It’s obvious. Women in combat has an extremely high risk/benefit ratio- so why do we keep having this conversation?
Women aka Organic Sandbags. Stacked properly they will stop most small arms penetration.
I am a woman, and LOL!
What was not said about the training requirements in 2012-15 was standards were already lowered for women a couple times. Go back to standards of the 70s, 80s, early 90s, the results would be much more different.
I am a woman and I agree with this 100%. my son is a Marine, and I don’t want any woman in infantry that can’t perform!
Non of them can and there are many other issues besides physical strength.
Bless the author- At 80, an Old Mustang Lt, this article is golden. On Women IMO - Women are our partners not adversaries. Feminism, from this officers view, was to diminish men, not raise women. There was no need. The incredible damage to the women, family and to the true value of women who are deeply involved in everything but combat, aircraft transport, research, ground support, medical. Bless them - Our Ethos as Christians and humans is being undermined. We fight for family, not against.
UNESCO education, subtly sells the belief that humans are to be lower than "animal species" - This is classic Environmental-ism. Research ISM, in this genre. Sir Julian Huxley: Philosophy: (the first director-general of UNESCO, 1946-1948) is published. Huxley declares: "The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background-
80 years of eugenic ( Abortion ) Global-ism ( Slavery ) and Human-ism -Animal species over mankind - NO.
I appreciate your thoughts but disagree with your point that females should serve alongside males. Males were created by God to be protectors. Females are nurturers. Females are weaker both physically and emotionally. They are not created to kill. They give birth. Men want to serve with men. It develops male esprit decor. Females could serve far behine enemy lines in noncombat roles. They need to be removed from all Navy ships and military Academies and officer corps.