By

Sara Dover /

CBS News/ February 1, 2013, 3:17 PM

Marines study shows resistance to women in combat

United States Marine Corps female recruit adjusts her Kevlar helmet January 15, 2003 before re-entering the Combat Pool for another swim lesson during boot camp on Parris Island, S.C.

United States Marine Corps female recruit adjusts her Kevlar helmet January 15, 2003 before re-entering the Combat Pool for another swim lesson during boot camp on Parris Island, S.C. / Stephen Morton

In a sign of resistance over a new Pentagon policy that would open thousands of combat roles to women, a Marine Corps survey shows that 17 percent of Marine respondents say they would probably leave the Corps if women move into those previously banned front-line positions. The number jumps to 22 percent if women are assigned involuntarily to those jobs.

Play Video

Female vet: Men will resist women in ground combat

20 Photos

U.S. service women through the years

The Associated Press, which obtained the survey of 53,000 Marines, reports it was conducted last summer and the results were given to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta before he announced the decision last week. The 17 percent refers to Marines who were previously planning to stay in the military or undecided about it.

About 4 percent of female Marines surveyed said they would consider leaving if the 1993 ban was lifted, and about 31 percent of women respondents said they would be interested in moving into a combat position.

Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps., told reporters at a news conference Thursday that the infantry side of the Corps is skeptical about how women will perform in their units, but most Marines support the policy change.

Mady Segal, a military sociologist who has served as an adviser to the Defense Department in gender integration policy, said people shouldn't get too worked up over the numbers.

"One of the things you have to realize is that service members, when surveyed may say they are against some proposed policy change and would leave if it happens; the policy changes were made and few service members left," Segal told CBSNews.com. "This happened with sexual orientation integration. They said they were going to leave, and they didn't." In fact, she said, the changes have resulted in the retention of more service members.

Segal added she was actually surprised the number wasn't higher, because the Marines are the branch that have the smallest percentage of women and are thus the least likely to see them in combat roles. Those male Marines who have worked with women in combat zones are the ones who are likely to be more positive, she said.

The Pentagon's new policy, to go into effect in the next few years, incited a lot of controversy since it was announced: Are women physically and mentally capable of fighting on the front lines? How are gender-integrated units going to affect the dynamic of war? And although the Defense Department insists it won't happen, could the standards to qualify for combat roles be lowered to accommodate women?

Women argue they've already been in combat, they just aren't recognized for it or lack proper training. Commanders have found women increasingly useful in Iraq in Afghanistan, where only female members of the military are allowed to communicate and work with other women in the villages.

Play Video

Pentagon to lift ban on women in combat

Dawn Halfaker, who commanded a Military Police Platoon in Iraq, lost her arm fighting alongside the infantry.

"There's not a big difference at all, in many of the missions we did with infantry," Dawn Halfaker told CBS News correspondent David Martin. "We were with artillery units, we were all fighting the same fight, doing the same thing."

Those who are against opening all combat roles to women argue that serving on the front lines alongside women will hurt a unit's effectiveness. Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, retired from the military and executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, called lifting the combat ban a "social experiment" that will put unnecessary burden on commanders to deal with separating genders and dealing with "underlying sexual tensions."

David Segal, also a military sociologist and married to Mady, said he heard similar arguments when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed, allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military.

"Two or three years ago when we were talking about lifting 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' there was same kind of hue and cry from a large number of generals: 'We're going to lose combat efficiency,' Now we're over a year downstream, and none of those bad things happened," he said.

Still, a number of op-eds by former soldiers have popped up since Panetta announced he was lifting the combat ban, lamenting the policy change. Thomas James Brennan, a former sergeant in the Marine Corps who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote in a New York Times editorial that the new policy could worsen sexual harassment in the military, despite the success of the DADT repeal.

"Not surprisingly, many Marines worry about whether living in close quarters, on or off deployment, will increase sexual harassment, assault and fraternization," he wrote.

David Segal notes, however, that a lot of criticism is due to a generation gap and comes from older and retired generals. Although it will take a lot of time, he thinks that opening combat roles to women will help reduce the amount of sexual harassment in the military (the Department of Defense estimates there are about 19,000 instances of sexual assault in the military per year).

Play Video

Sex abuse concerns grow in the Air Force

"I believe in the long run, as we define for our military professionals women are their equals, I think we're going to see a reduction in harassment," he said. "I don't think it'll change overnight, but I think that change will take place."

Female soldiers know they'll face some resistance from men about applying for front-line roles that were once closed to them. Col. Christine Stark told CBS News's Martin she doubts women will be lining up for the job, but she's not too worried about backlash from male soldiers. "I think it's only a matter of time before women just prove them wrong," she said.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
  • Sara Dover On Twitter »

    Sara Dover is an associate news editor for CBSNews.com

18 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
FromCalifornia says:
Sounds like they just found a great way to get rid of an undesirable 17% of their workforce. The world is evolving. Time to put away the clubs and stop dragging your knuckles on the ground. This sounds just like the whole police and fire tempest in a tea pot when women were "allowed" in those professions. No one lowered any standards, and women stepped up to the plate. Some males got their hormones hurt and quit. So?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
venusvegasvada says:
I'm glad I got my service done before they started running social experiments on the military.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ammo17 says:
as we have seen in the last week this voluntary military isn`t cutting the mustard anymore.how many times can you re-cycle the boots on the ground? these guys are not aluminum cans they cannot be used and used all over again.if we are going to be the police of the whole world,we will be in africa shortly,we have to bring back the draft.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jeffkro says:
"if women are assigned involuntarily to those jobs"

Yup this is the slippery slope. Say your daughter enlists to be a dental hygienist and she instead ends up slogging a rifle around. Worse what if something big happens and women get drafted into rifle-wo-man positions. I really don't think parents would be ok with this.
reply
queenofclubs replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Your comment implies parents are Ok with their sons being killed in combat as though they're somehow expendable because they are male.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TimeToRetire says:
Feminists and old-fashion soldiers agree on one thing. If equality is what women want, equality is what they get. All girls will have to register for selective service at age 18 and be eligible for the draft. All men and women must have their head shaved, no exceptions for ladies, because it is a hygiene thing in war. Women will have to go through the same training regiment and same obstacle courses. No reducing requirements just because you are female because the battlefield requires soldiers who can handle the riggers of war. No going home from the battlefield because you decided getting pregnant is an easy way to stay alive. Ask Shannon Faulkner, the first cadet at the Citadel, what it takes to be a marine and how she lasted.
reply
jeffkro replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I think half the reason for shaving your head in basic is to tell you that you're not in control.
queenofclubs replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Bad analogy. Shannon Faulkner doesn't speak for genuine vets. Cadets are still civilians. Ask the MILLIONS of other women who have served successfully in the REAL Corps, like me! We'll tell dinosaurs like you to stick it.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
micmac666 says:
Take my mother-in-law, please.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Colt4542 says:
Any job should have a set of requirements and minimum physical abilities. Can you carry/drag a 180 lb soldier? can you carry a 80 lb pack for 20 miles? can you scale a wall with that pack on? In other words, can you fullfill the minimum job requirements?

Best way to eliminate the sex/gay/racist/religion argument is to just remove those check boxes from ALL applications, military and civilian. Let the employer hire the most qualified applicant with no knowledge of those criteria. Treat everyone equally, period.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
HM8432 says:
Nice photo of an ARMY guy at the top of an article about Marines.

Having served in combat with the Marines (we, would sometimes have female Marines present), it always seemed that with the women, the quiet, unassuming ones always performed the best under the stress of combat, but the 'I'm a woman, hear me roar' types were ALWAYS the first to turn into blubbering emotional messes under fire. Not only would we have to deal with the enemy, bu we would have to use our Corpsman to take care of her at the same time, thus endangering our platoon.

I have no problem with women serving in combat, but they should be held to the same standards as us guys are, and if women want true equality, then they need to be included in Selective Service registration at the age of 18, like all males are.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
erasmus111 says:
I doubt that too many women are surprised at hearing that.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ReasonableVoicesAmongUs says:
On the battlefield mental and physical strength are required. If the women can measure up, so be it. But it's doubtful. I am a vet. I have yet to meet a combat-ready female. Perhaps she is out there, but she would be a very rare find. The safety valve here is the local commander. He is NOT going to jeopardize his unit just to be politically correct...regs or not.
reply
erasmus111 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I don't really see what the problems is. Man or woman, if they are fit, they're in, if they aren't, they're not. It's as simple as that.
TimeToRetire replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
When Pat Tillman left the NFL and the big dollars to enlist in Afghanistan, the liberals were all in agreement. Tillman was an idiot. Now the same liberals are cheering that the military will send their daughters into war. Are there any real men left on the left?
See all 4 Replies
See all 18 Comments