The purpose of this was twofold: if these programs negatively impacted unit cohesion or resulted in the loss of government property - to include Marines’ lives - they could deflect responsibility back onto the politicians who insisted on expanding women’s roles in the Marine Corps. However, if these social experiments succeeded, the Marine Corps would acknowledge that the majority of its forces were in fact capable of participating in combat, thus gaining the ability to reassign any Marine, regardless of gender or original specialty, to a combat position. While the programs were considered a mixed success, they again dredged up the barely concealed distaste and distrust that many male Marines, especially infantry Marines, possessed for female Marines.
Men, long seen as the protectors of society, have not taken the intrusion of women into the Marine Corps well. The prevailing attitude insists that existing behavioral generalizations are in place because they embody the archetype best suited for specific kinds of work: men are the protectors and defenders, and must be aggressive and competitive, while women are best suited for roles that require compassion and cooperation. In fact, the very characteristics of the military
…show more content…
However, any cases of women’s performance in combat have been aggrandized, in an attempt to push liberal agendas, while ignoring courageous contributions from males. “Stories about women soldiers have been exaggerated and even falsified as advocates for women in combat use isolated examples in attempts to demonstrate that women can do anything that men can do. These advocates [...] want to ignore the differences between the sexes and make men and women interchangeable.” (Sherrow, p36). By creating heroes out of female service members who are faced with the ultimate choice, it implies that female Marines’ lives are more valuable than those of