The main concern when it comes to women in combat is their physical inability to meet certain physical standards.

There have been exceptions, but they have been rare.

It is enough to think that the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course, open to female volunteers since 2012, has not had a single female graduate yet.

Many have argued that valuable time and money should not be invested on populations that are unlikely to succeed, and that the high risk of sexual violence in combat units is an inevitable consequence of mixed gender units.

Kate Germano, a Marine officer who led the service’s only all-female recruit battalion, disagreed.

She thought women could meet higher physical standards, and believed most cases of sexual violence could be easily prevented.

Earlier this month she was fired.

Despite the fact that performance improved dramatically within the battalion during her tenure, a survey taken in April found that the recruits perceived her methods as hostile, and thought they reinforced “gender bias and stereotypes.”

These methods were based on Germano’s belief that other Marines would see women as inferiors, and refuse to take orders from them if they were not able to meet equal physical standards.

According to multiple witnesses, Germano singled out recruits who could not perform three pull-ups nor complete a 3-mile run in less than 23 minutes.

If anyone should be accused of reinforcing gender stereotypes it is these incompetent women, who fail to understand what it means to be a Marine. I can not help but wonder how they would have reacted to Sergeant Hartman.

Another aspect of Germano’s behaviour that hurt the Marines’ feelings was her attitude towards sexual assault, which she considered to be preventable especially by avoiding heavy drinking.

This was of course perceived as victim-blaming, even though no real victim was actually blamed.

Considering what feminism has become it does not come as a surprise that women are being labeled as victims even when no crime has been committed, and are not expected to act as responsible adults when it comes to prevention.

Many considered Germano a caring leader who prioritized troop well being, and with her methods she achieved unprecedented results, but this was not enough to prevent her from losing her job.

I was not aware that the military considered protecting its recruits’ feelings a priority, I thought the goal was to provide them with skills to protect their lives.

Kate Germano’s case demonstrates that there is a problem, and it is way more serious than just low physical abilities.

It is the sense of entitlement that started when the presence of women in combat (or lack thereof) became a feminist issue.

Nobody is entitled to serve in the military.

Being part of a combat unit is not a right, it is a responsibility.

If we look at the cases in which women’s contribution was valuable in times of war it is not hard to realize that their role had nothing to do with entitlement and feminism, but it was dictated by necessity.

Recently we saw Kurdish women’s efforts in the fight against ISIS.



Most of these women were not fighters before the war, they did not mean to start a career in the military, but they were all humble enough to recognize that they were fighting for their country, not to prove a point.

When American women will learn how to be humble, maybe it will be possible to have a more meaningful discussion on their presence in combat.

In the meantime, someone should tell them they can not get rid of the enemy by complaining about its hostile methods.