"A yearlong Marine Corps study trying to understand how gender integration would affect combat readiness has found that all-male units were faster, more lethal and able to evacuate casualties in less time.
Overall, according to a summary of the study, all-male squads performed better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated... All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries."
I'm sure very few people who have been paying attention to this even peripherally are surprised, but at least now we have hard data to back up what many people have been saying ever since the idea of integrating the combat arms was floated.
Nothing even remotely surprising about this. Many of us who served in Mixed units in the past were pointing out similar experiences. My only concern is that this won't be enough to stop integration of combat units. And before someone comes out and starts yelling MISOGYNIST, I have no problem with woman serving in any capacity, until it compromises a units combat efficiency. Equal opportunity should always be a goal unless it costs lives.
Does anyone here seriously believe this study is going to change the integration of combat units?
There are too many feel goods attached to this idea of intergrating women in the name of equality, making it something that will never go away.
It should be fairly obvious to anyone who isn't in denial that generally speaking a man will on average be better at the physical aspects of "war" then a woman.
The question is to what extent. I'm a proponent of giving women larger combat roles in the military, but at what point is the disparity in performance between male and female considered too wide to justify even bothering letting women in? The most popular argument for proponents of integrating women into front-line units is that if even just one out of 100 women has the genetics/potential to match a man in physical performance, that one woman should be allowed to have the same opportunities and responsibilities as men. But if you consider that every trainee who washes out or underperforms is essentially a net-loss in training time and money for the military, does there come a point where the opportunity/resource cost is simply too high to allow women into these roles?
I think this is the result of having one group get easy access while one group has restricted access. It means the easy group is likely going to have the most variation in ability. Well at least that's how I see it anyway...
Funny this came after the anti women neck-beard thread though.
Don't go off topic by getting into arguments about a moderator wanting you to include more in your OP than you did. Take it to PMs, I deleted the last post and I'll delete future ones as well.
It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.
DarkLink wrote: It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.
I don't know... gotta break some eggs to make an omelet maybe?
DarkLink wrote: It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.
I don't know... gotta break some eggs to make an omelet maybe?
It's easier to say if you or your loved ones are not among those who are going into harm's way.
DarkLink wrote: It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.
And don't forget about the fact that the injury rate was 6 times that of men. So for every injury a male Marine suffered 6 Females were injured. At what point do you just rule this out based on the injury numbers alone? how long can a Woman be combat effective with stress fractures?
Also I would like to point out that the full article points out that for certain events it was the males in the mixed units that performed for the "team" as opposed to the females. Specifically events such as individual casualty retrieval, which is where a Marine fire man carries a "wounded" buddy out of combat.
DarkLink wrote: It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard. It also costs a sizable chunk of money to send people to training, and that becomes money wasted if they just wash out.
I don't know... gotta break some eggs to make an omelet maybe?
Go serve a couple years on the front lines, I doubt you will keep that mindset.
By breaking eggs I meant spending money to find more ways to train to remedy the issue. I apologize if it was perceived differently.
I care deeply for the folks in the military. Folks who know me know that I care deeply for the folks in the military. I even wish I wasn't such a feth up when I was younger and took better efforts to join the marine corps when I had the chance (was always 20 or so lbs from joining... I really shouldn't have passed up the help the recruiter's offered).
Really, I wasn't trying to undermine the lives of those involved.
My apologies. I'll bow out of this conversation. I really don't have the intelligence or eloquence some folk have with discussing topics.
Also, my point was, if you have a course like Marine Infantry Officer Course where every single female who's tried it has failed, or even Ranger School where, while very few women might be able to make it through but the pass rate is extremely low, it's simply not financially feasible to send people you know are almost guaranteed to fail. And if you have a course where even if you do get a decent pass rate, the ones that do pass tend to do so by a very narrow margin, you're hurting the combat effectiveness of the unit by taking slots away from top performers and giving them to weaker candidates. Not to say that no female will ever pass IOC or anything, but it simply might not be practical to open the school to women.
Keep in mind, I think that if a female can perform, she should get a shot, it's just a question of how many women actually can perform at that level. Even if they are physically fit enough, female injury rates in these training schools have been very high, and that's far more of an issue than whether or not they can do a minimum number of pullups or not.
djphranq wrote: By breaking eggs I meant spending money to find more ways to train to remedy the issue. I apologize if it was perceived differently.
I care deeply for the folks in the military. Folks who know me know that I care deeply for the folks in the military. I even wish I wasn't such a feth up when I was younger and took better efforts to join the marine corps when I had the chance (was always 20 or so lbs from joining... I really shouldn't have passed up the help the recruiter's offered).
Really, I wasn't trying to undermine the lives of those involved.
My apologies. I'll bow out of this conversation. I really don't have the intelligence or eloquence some folk have with discussing topics.
Thats fine, but your actual point doesn't make sense either. You can't change the training without lowering the standards. Having had to hump gear in country I can tell you that training missions usually are UNDER weight not at or over weight. The average combat load is usually 100+lbs and thats not counting crew served weapons like the 240.
Furthermore, to waste money on this would make me sick. At the moment the best Infantry armor in the world is called "Dragon Skin" body armor.
https://dragonskinarmor.com/ The reason we aren't issued that armor in country is because it is more expensive then our current MTVs and Plate Carriers. I have seen Dragon Skin armor defeating grenades strapped to it.
So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
But surely the women wouldn't be there if there were enough manly men to take the higher scores? Or is there an actual quota of females allowed in without regard to their scores?
Hmm... and this is also a test from having 100 women and 300 men volunteer for exercises. Why aren't they using actual data from mixed and all-male units that saw combat?
Spetulhu wrote: But surely the women wouldn't be there if there were enough manly men to take the higher scores? Or is there an actual quota of females allowed in without regard to their scores?
Hmm... and this is also a test from having 100 women and 300 men volunteer for exercises. Why aren't they using actual data from mixed and all-male units that saw combat?
You don't make any sense at all.
This was a USMC test to study the effectiveness of Females in mixed gender infantry unit.
the 300 males were divided into a 200 All male unit and a 100 male 100 female mixed gender unit. The two units were then tested to see which did better in each set of tests.
As for why theirs no data for mixed units that saw combat...because none exist. Up until now the only time females saw combat was in random ambushes and small fire fights, nothing as extreme as most infantry have to go through.
I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.
djphranq wrote: By breaking eggs I meant spending money to find more ways to train to remedy the issue. I apologize if it was perceived differently.
I care deeply for the folks in the military. Folks who know me know that I care deeply for the folks in the military. I even wish I wasn't such a feth up when I was younger and took better efforts to join the marine corps when I had the chance (was always 20 or so lbs from joining... I really shouldn't have passed up the help the recruiter's offered).
Really, I wasn't trying to undermine the lives of those involved.
My apologies. I'll bow out of this conversation. I really don't have the intelligence or eloquence some folk have with discussing topics.
Thats fine, but your actual point doesn't make sense either. You can't change the training without lowering the standards. Having had to hump gear in country I can tell you that training missions usually are UNDER weight not at or over weight. The average combat load is usually 100+lbs and thats not counting crew served weapons like the 240.
Furthermore, to waste money on this would make me sick. At the moment the best Infantry armor in the world is called "Dragon Skin" body armor.
https://dragonskinarmor.com/ The reason we aren't issued that armor in country is because it is more expensive then our current MTVs and Plate Carriers. I have seen Dragon Skin armor defeating grenades strapped to it.
So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
I wasn't thinking of lowering standards but I see what you're saying.
So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
I think what he was saying was more along the lines of: people have a certain effective combat shooting ability (marksmanship) under these specific testing metrics... If we spent "umpteen millions" of dollars on improving that aspect of combat effectiveness, you'd see an increase across the board
As an example, if a fire team of all males scores an "87" in a MOUT course, out of 100, and a mixed gender team does the same thing and scores a 75.... shouldn't we look at ways to improve both that 87 and 75?
I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.
If I'm understanding his/her message clearly.... basically he's asking about whether there's a "quota" of females in these infantry slots, or whether these women are the top of the top, the ones who legitimately meet other standards?
So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
I think what he was saying was more along the lines of: people have a certain effective combat shooting ability (marksmanship) under these specific testing metrics... If we spent "umpteen millions" of dollars on improving that aspect of combat effectiveness, you'd see an increase across the board
As an example, if a fire team of all males scores an "87" in a MOUT course, out of 100, and a mixed gender team does the same thing and scores a 75.... shouldn't we look at ways to improve both that 87 and 75?
I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.
If I'm understanding his/her message clearly.... basically he's asking about whether there's a "quota" of females in these infantry slots, or whether these women are the top of the top, the ones who legitimately meet other standards?
Well the metric of combat marksmanship can be improved by spending more time on the range, but the other metrics CANT be changed through more training. And in the military there is a lot more then just shooting accurately.
Well the metric of combat marksmanship can be improved by spending more time on the range, but the other metrics CANT be changed through more training. And in the military there is a lot more then just shooting accurately.
I know that, before I left the army, and throughout my time in it, the training constantly evolved. The army generally speaking, was constantly seeking ways to improve training, if they couldn't increase frequency. Being in the specialized units that I was in, MOS training took precedence over things like room clearing, basic land nav, and sadly, even marksmanship... So those units had to make the best of what training they could get in. What we couldn't do through repetitive training (like Infantry may get), we had to get with "efficient" training.
And, IMO, everyone should be doing that with each of their tasks... trying to come up with ways to improve the training
So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
Hrm, there was a whole host of drama behind that piece of equipment and questions regarding its capability and failure rates in various environments and all sorts of different testing results and lots of bad blood between and amongst the manufacturer and various military procurement and testing groups.
So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
Hrm, there was a whole host of drama behind that piece of equipment and questions regarding its capability and failure rates in various environments and all sorts of different testing results and lots of bad blood between and amongst the manufacturer and various military procurement and testing groups.
I remember my second deployment, there was talk we were supposed to get dragon armor... eventually we got our IOTVs. Among the reasons were that apparently the dragon armor failed the "water test" as in, it was too difficult to remove in a deep water survival situation, and it's weight being more than the IOTV and other options, the issue of removing it in those situations becomes even more problematic.
djphranq wrote: By breaking eggs I meant spending money to find more ways to train to remedy the issue. I apologize if it was perceived differently.
I care deeply for the folks in the military. Folks who know me know that I care deeply for the folks in the military. I even wish I wasn't such a feth up when I was younger and took better efforts to join the marine corps when I had the chance (was always 20 or so lbs from joining... I really shouldn't have passed up the help the recruiter's offered).
Really, I wasn't trying to undermine the lives of those involved.
My apologies. I'll bow out of this conversation. I really don't have the intelligence or eloquence some folk have with discussing topics.
Thats fine, but your actual point doesn't make sense either. You can't change the training without lowering the standards. Having had to hump gear in country I can tell you that training missions usually are UNDER weight not at or over weight. The average combat load is usually 100+lbs and thats not counting crew served weapons like the 240.
Furthermore, to waste money on this would make me sick. At the moment the best Infantry armor in the world is called "Dragon Skin" body armor.
https://dragonskinarmor.com/ The reason we aren't issued that armor in country is because it is more expensive then our current MTVs and Plate Carriers. I have seen Dragon Skin armor defeating grenades strapped to it.
So we can't afford dragon skin armor for our guys in harms way but we would be ok with spending umpteen millions on training a small percentage of females for Combat MOSs even though they are 6x more likely to be injured.
All other things aside this just isn't how government spending works. Research & Training for finding more optimal ways to use women probably wouldn't come out of the body armor budget any more than the military budget determines in general determines how much we spend on infrastructure maintenance. Like or not the military has basically done a cost/benefit analysis and weighed the per-unit costs on armor vs the value of a soldiers life and determined the armor isn't worth it. It's not a value proposition they can take. You could double or triple the millitary budget and this analysis likely wouldn't change. A surplus of resources doesn't mean they'll invest that surplus in things already to determined to be of insufficient value. It'd go in normal proportion to whatever they do see as worthwhile ventures which doesn't include that body armor (though something like R&D for better cost effective armor might not be out of the question).
EDIT: This if course assumes that your assumption of it being a cost issue is correct. This obviously doesn't apply if cost wasn't dominate factor in the decisions.
Chongara wrote: EDIT: This if course assumes that your assumption of it being a cost issue is correct. This obviously doesn't apply if cost wasn't dominate factor in the decisions.
Dragonskin was a huge drama about a decade ago. The army was unhappy with early tests where a significant portion of the vests provided were not up to quality standards, and the makers of Dragon Skin handled that criticism pretty badly. The two parties negotiated new test conditions and it got pretty antagonistic. The contractor started making complaints that the army was tanking the tests to avoid having to pay for the higher priced armour, while the army eventually ruled that the body armour failed in higher temperatures making it useless.
Exactly who is right and who is wrong in all of that I have no idea, and probably no-one outside of the original testing would ever really know for certain if they engineered the tests to fail, but I'll tell you one thing - if the DoD was given all the money in the world tomorrow, they wouldn't spend it on Dragon Skin. They've made their minds up, for one reason or another.
So the argument that if money wasn't spend or potentially wasted on integration then you'd get Dragon Skin just doesn't work.
mitch_rifle wrote: Women held us back in physical task's every time, some sections that were all male had to switch out for females to spread them around
as all male sections were "unfair" as they'd win every physical tasking
Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?
Are you saying that warfare does not involve artillery, close quarters, extracting wounded and other activities that require the soldier to be strong to stay alive? I was not aware bullets can disarm grenades.
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?
No, that is not what is being said in that thread. What is being said in that thread is that a gun gives a weaker person a chance to defend themselves against a stronger person. Since 'a weaker person defending themselves against a stronger person' has NEVER been the goal of an infantry unit, attempting to compare the two is silly.
Ghazkuul wrote: I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.
Mostly that I wondered if the females in the test actually met the scores required to get in or were just put there because they needed 100 of them. And I started with some snark, ofc - if there's women dragging the service down then apparently there's too few manly men joining.
Ghazkuul wrote: I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.
Mostly that I wondered if the females in the test actually met the scores required to get in or were just put there because they needed 100 of them. And I started with some snark, ofc - if there's women dragging the service down then apparently there's too few manly men joining.
The female Marines came directly from SOI (School of Infantry) or were grabbed from other units, probably due to their willingness to try this experiment. At the moment there are no "Scores" to get into infantry other then the basic ones for all marines. As it stands in the USMC has a double standard for physical fitness, Female scores and male scores being graded differently. So these females would have had high enough scores to be Marines which is good enough for every other MOS.
And the "Snarky" comment? If you go into your average Marine Recruiting office they will probably tell you to wait until October to try and get into Infantry because all the jobs available are taken. The USMC has not had a problem getting recruits to join up, especially as Infantry.
Ghazkuul wrote: I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.
Mostly that I wondered if the females in the test actually met the scores required to get in or were just put there because they needed 100 of them. And I started with some snark, ofc - if there's women dragging the service down then apparently there's too few manly men joining.
The female Marines came directly from SOI (School of Infantry) or were grabbed from other units, probably due to their willingness to try this experiment. At the moment there are no "Scores" to get into infantry other then the basic ones for all marines. As it stands in the USMC has a double standard for physical fitness, Female scores and male scores being graded differently. So these females would have had high enough scores to be Marines which is good enough for every other MOS.
And the "Snarky" comment? If you go into your average Marine Recruiting office they will probably tell you to wait until October to try and get into Infantry because all the jobs available are taken. The USMC has not had a problem getting recruits to join up, especially as Infantry.
For the time being at least, and perhaps into the future and perhaps not. The popularity of the military goes up and down on the scale of decades with a very strong downward trend over the long term. Averaging the last 50 years or so against the total past, we're at all time historical low in terms of the prestige of the military and the public view of military exploits. I certainly don't see a shortage cropping up any time soon but adopting policies that maximize the available recruit pool might not bad future proofing.
That aside this is still just one study, and what looks to be a relatively small one that. I'm not sure it's terribly meaningful given the current double standard either. That's a major fudge factor since it might be telling us more about what happens when you let people held to lower standards than you do women. Meaning I'd be curious to see what the drop in effectiveness would be if you added males who could only meet the current female standards and not the current male ones in the same proportion as they added females. Would we see a similar drop in performance?
The standards should be the standards and I'd be curious to see how women would stack up when it's only those that could meet the male standards (however few or many in number they may be), even better if placed with and compared against male groups that mapped closely with their actual scores.
Certainly I think given the same training as a fit woman my fat lazy ass would slow down a military group more than she would, they'd likely have to waive any standards at all for me to qualify to participate, and hey I've got a penis.
So, essentially this trial shows that mixed units using the current separate standards of physical fitness for both sexes perform worse than a single sex unit comprised of the higher (male) standard.
This should have been obvious, but at least now there's evidence.
What it doesn't prove is whether a mixed sex unit of equal physical capability compared to a current single sex unit performs to the same standard or worse.
You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?
Holy cow. I didn't realize modern warfare had now eliminated the need for carrying heavy loads, hand to hand, and all of those other items that require brute physical strength and endurance and was now just consisting of lines of people just shooting at each other with nothing else involved.
Feminists and their apologists need to understand the hard reality that gender equality doesnt mean we are all the same, or have the same capabilities.
Political doctrine is winning over from hard reality. Most gender equality measure are reasonable, but the miltitary is the most competitive field possible, while the highest stakes and the greatest levity as to whether people stick to the rules, so having less than an optimised armed force is illogical no matter the doctrinal upset this causes.
Israel did studies on female fighters back in the 60s and following and use female fighters comparatively extensively. The IDF are nobodies fools and use the assets they have efficiently, however for most duties they do not use mixed gender units for sound logical reasons.
One of the principle problems is what happens if a female soldier is shot in a mixed gender unit. Something the USMC current testing isnt doing much.
Wounded females are a strong emotional trigger, humans are hardwired to react to this. Far more so than wounded males, who are from the species point of view, and thus the deep conscious point of view expendable assets, and it effects female and male compatriots very differently. Lose a man and the unit remains fairly effective, lose a woman and combat effectiveness drops drastically.
Female only units can and do work, but are sometimes better and usually less adapt at combat tasks.
CptJake wrote: You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.
Why not? Pay them to partake on their way out, or call up some who already were. Find some slackers to train in a standard program just for the experiment. Seriously there are ways of getting the data.
Henry wrote: So, essentially this trial shows that mixed units using the current separate standards of physical fitness for both sexes perform worse than a single sex unit comprised of the higher (male) standard. This should have been obvious, but at least now there's evidence.
What it doesn't prove is whether a mixed sex unit of equal physical capability compared to a current single sex unit performs to the same standard or worse.
No, the females chosen for that test all had to meet the minimum male standards.
CptJake wrote: You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.
Why not? Pay them to partake on their way out, or call up some who already were. Find some slackers to train in a standard program just for the experiment. Seriously there are ways of getting the data.
Why not? Because there are man power caps in place and holding guys who cannot meet minimum standards is a massive waste of tax payer dollars and not fair to the service that has to fill slots with them.
AND because the actual test used females who COULD meet the minimum male standards. So your whole premise is based on wrong information.
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?
Holy cow. I didn't realize modern warfare had now eliminated the need for carrying heavy loads, hand to hand, and all of those other items that require brute physical strength and endurance and was now just consisting of lines of people just shooting at each other with nothing else involved.
Being a infantry man for 10 years there is more to it then shooting a weapon. I was a assist gunner when I was a private and worked on the gun teams for my entire 10 years. My ruck as a assist gunner weighted over 100 lbs and my LBE was another 55 lbs. I would hump that ruck and gear sometimes over 15 miles on certain missions and it would break most men in my platoon. Nobody wanted to be on the gun teams because they knew they would have to hump x2 the weight of everybody else. Seen a lot of guys during my time that could not meet the physical demands of the airborne infantry and get thrown out of the army. On jumps add another 65 lbs of parachute onto the over 150 lbs of gear. The military should not be a social experiment...
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?
Holy cow. I didn't realize modern warfare had now eliminated the need for carrying heavy loads, hand to hand, and all of those other items that require brute physical strength and endurance and was now just consisting of lines of people just shooting at each other with nothing else involved.
Being a infantry man for 10 years there is more to it then shooting a weapon. I was a assist gunner when I was a private and worked on the gun teams for my entire 10 years. My ruck as a assist gunner weighted over 100 lbs and my LBE was another 55 lbs. I would hump that ruck and gear sometimes over 15 miles on certain missions and it would break most men in my platoon. Nobody wanted to be on the gun teams because they knew they would have to hump x2 the weight of everybody else. Seen a lot of guys during my time that could not meet the physical demands of the airborne infantry and get thrown out of the army. On jumps add another 65 lbs of parachute onto the over 150 lbs of gear. The military should not be a social experiment...
Well spoken. It was a bit odd to me how Kilkrazy seems to believe all you need to do in the military is stand there shooting a rifle.
Henry wrote: So, essentially this trial shows that mixed units using the current separate standards of physical fitness for both sexes perform worse than a single sex unit comprised of the higher (male) standard.
This should have been obvious, but at least now there's evidence.
What it doesn't prove is whether a mixed sex unit of equal physical capability compared to a current single sex unit performs to the same standard or worse.
No, the females chosen for that test all had to meet the minimum male standards.
CptJake wrote: You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.
Why not? Pay them to partake on their way out, or call up some who already were. Find some slackers to train in a standard program just for the experiment. Seriously there are ways of getting the data.
Why not? Because there are man power caps in place and holding guys who cannot meet minimum standards is a massive waste of tax payer dollars and not fair to the service that has to fill slots with them.
AND because the actual test used females who COULD meet the minimum male standards. So your whole premise is based on wrong information.
And in the USMC the minimum male standard is failing. In my battalion if you weren't a 1st Class PFT you were put on remedial PT which meant you gave up your lunch break to go work out even more then we already did. The minimums for males btw is I believe 3 Pull ups 3 mile run in 27:59 and something stupid like 50 crunches. But with that said I think they are going by the worst PASSING Grade for a male PFT which would be a 135: Pullups are worth 5 points each, Crunches are worth 1 point each and on the 3 mile run every 10 seconds over 18minutes reduces your score by 1 point (you start with 100 points for the run)
And why would you compare the worst failing male marines to the females attempting to be infantry? I don't grasp the reasoning behind that
Henry wrote: So, essentially this trial shows that mixed units using the current separate standards of physical fitness for both sexes perform worse than a single sex unit comprised of the higher (male) standard.
This should have been obvious, but at least now there's evidence.
What it doesn't prove is whether a mixed sex unit of equal physical capability compared to a current single sex unit performs to the same standard or worse.
No, the females chosen for that test all had to meet the minimum male standards.
CptJake wrote: You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.
Why not? Pay them to partake on their way out, or call up some who already were. Find some slackers to train in a standard program just for the experiment. Seriously there are ways of getting the data.
Why not? Because there are man power caps in place and holding guys who cannot meet minimum standards is a massive waste of tax payer dollars and not fair to the service that has to fill slots with them.
AND because the actual test used females who COULD meet the minimum male standards. So your whole premise is based on wrong information.
Well that makes the study better in my view. I was taking Ghazkuul post roughly at face value, so the error is mine there. I can still imagine a fair amount of fudge that our conversation hasn't specifically accounted for but let's just give the study administrators the benefit of the doubt and assume their controls were good enough such that results can be strictly accounted for by the participants being female. That is they controlled for every possible performance variable and assuming all other predictors are held equal over the data, femaleness alone can be conclusively held as the sole cause of the performance drop.
I'd still like to see more studies with larger sample sizes, if I've been following correctly (and I may not have been) this was done once with a couple hundred groups. Replication is the name of the game here.
If given all the above, I can see a rational basis for a gender-based exclusion policy in this case. That is:
A) Multiple studies with large groups can confirm that being female alone, is enough to cause a performance drop.
B) That performance drop is sufficiently large to represent an increased risk out of line with other known risk factors considered acceptable.
C) No reasonable steps exist to sufficiently mitigate either A or B exist.
D) The evaluation model being used for all these has sound grounding in scientifically proven predictors of overall success in the field. If only because armies are organizations that tend to get stuck in established ways of thinking and sometimes overlook important variables that are either new or long ignored.
I'd find no grounds to object to the males only policy. In general I'm very wary of policies that place restrictions on people simply as a matter of the broad classifications they belong to. It's usually a pretty big non-starter for me. This does deserve to be thoroughly tested, verified, along with workaround attemps simply because it passes a basic sanity test at face value. Let's just be sure first, like properly scientifically sure if we want to clamp back down on the tradition here. The world isn't going to melt if the data comes back "Given these reasonably met conditions, there exist women that can enter combat with no unacceptable negative effects" nor will it melt if "There are no reasonably met conditions in which women can participate in combat without creating unacceptable risk"
EDIT:
And why would you compare the worst failing male marines to the females attempting to be infantry? I don't grasp the reasoning behind that
It's to keep your variables clean. For just having an easy model, let's assume a simple hypothetical system in which people are rated on a scale from 1-100 before doing the practical tests.
If we just grab a punch of random passing women, or random average women and put them up against the average men we're getting a whole bunch of 55-65s against 75s-85s. The performance scores are a major variance beyond gender. A clean test might choose all participants that are rated at 70, or 80 or some other number in the range. With these held constant measured performance isn't a confuding factor against gender.
The low scoring men are useful because we get to see the effects of adding in a "60" to the group, and have that 60 be male when previously they were all female. If we see a similar performance drop it's an indicator that the casual factor may be the "60" score, rather than femaleness.
This experiment used 400 Marines for the testing population and dozens more as testers the USMC is only about 182k strong so they used a fairly LARGE sample of the population for testing. There is absolutely no way you could replicate this test hundreds of times.
The low scoring men are useful because we get to see the effects of adding in a "60" to the group, and have that 60 be male when previously they were all female. If we see a similar performance drop it's an indicator that the casual factor may be the "60" score, rather than femaleness.
It still doesn't make sense though because in the USMC those men would be kicked out for not being physically fit enough. So what your saying is you want to compare male marines who got kicked out for not being good enough to the average woman.
Ghazkuul wrote: This experiment used 400 Marines for the testing population and dozens more as testers the USMC is only about 182k strong so they used a fairly LARGE sample of the population for testing. There is absolutely no way you could replicate this test hundreds of times.
There are a few solutions to this. First you don't need actual marines. You only need people that have taken proper marine training, been properly rated by marine standards and have done the practical tests in proper marine fashion. If further verification is beyond the means of the USMC or the scope of what they're allowed to do the process could be done by some external entity with non-marines meeting the specifications I outlined under supervision and guidance from the USMC.
Secondly you could do these over a longer time scale. Proper studies in other fields sometimes run for 20 or 30 years, depending on what they're testing and the availability proper testing opportunities. If the way this needs to be batched out demands a longer timeline so be it.
From my perspective without proper data a decision either way is kind of arbitrary, by the very definition of not having concrete data. If my government is going to be making arbitrary decisions I'm going tend to prefer they err on the side of avoiding avoiding class discrimination as one of the highest priorities. This is because I tend to see in history a broad trend of these being more socially harmful than anything. If I'm going to move over to the side that uses gender alone as the deciding factor, I want thoroughly sound proof before I'm going to get in that corner. That's just one citizens opinion of how he wants his government working and it's as much value or as little value as any other.
It still doesn't make sense though because in the USMC those men would be kicked out for not being physically fit enough. So what your saying is you want to compare male marines who got kicked out for not being good enough to the average woman.
What I want is clean variables. Where they can go "Yeah. We've looked at everything, held all other feasible factors constant it's femaleness alone among them that causes the performance drop". Doing things like checking low performing males is a necessary part of getting that clean data., even if they would never actually be part of the units normally.
Ghazkuul wrote: This experiment used 400 Marines for the testing population and dozens more as testers the USMC is only about 182k strong so they used a fairly LARGE sample of the population for testing. There is absolutely no way you could replicate this test hundreds of times.
There are a few solutions to this. First you don't need actual marines. You only need people that have taken proper marine training, been properly rated by marine standards and have done the practical tests in proper marine fashion. If further verification is beyond the means of the USMC or the scope of what they're allowed to do the process could be done by some external entity with non-marines meeting the specifications I outlined under supervision and guidance from the USMC.
Secondly you could do these over a longer time scale. Proper studies in other field sometimes run for 20 or 30 years, depending on what they're testing and the availability proper testing opportunities. If the way this needs to be batched out demands a longer timeline so be it.
From my perspective without proper data a decision either way is kind of arbitrary, by the very definition of not having concrete data. If my government is going to be making arbitrary decisions I'm going tend to prefer they err on the side of avoiding avoiding class discrimination as one of the highest priorities. This is because I tend to see in history a broad trend of these being more socially harmful than anything. I'm going to move over to the side that uses gender alone as the deciding factor, I want thoroughly sound proof before I'm going to get in that corner. That's just one citizens opinion of how he wants his government working and it's as much value or as little value as any other.
It still doesn't make sense though because in the USMC those men would be kicked out for not being physically fit enough. So what your saying is you want to compare male marines who got kicked out for not being good enough to the average woman.
What I want is clean variables. Where they can go "Yeah. We've looked at everything, held all other feasible factors constant it's femaleness alone among them that causes the performance drop". Doing things like checking low performing males is a necessary part of getting that clean data., even if they would never actually be part of the units normally.
This was a test run by the Marines for their own internal purposes not for the broader "Woman combat" issue. The President ordered all Branches to integrate by 2016 unless they request a special waiver. This was done to see if MARINE females were up to the task not FEMALES in general. No offense to other branches but I would rather have a Marine by my side in a firefight then anyone else. (Im not including special forces because Marines aren't special forces).
If you used random civvies in this test it would be meaningless. Before joining the fleet ALL marines are subjected to at the minimum 4 months of training and then at least another month of follow on A Schooling which can take up to 2 years depending on the MOS. There is a reason Marines are classified as Light Infantry, we can operate in every combat environment with minimal support, we carry in everything we need and we never leave a Marine behind. Civvies don't have that mentality and the test would be useless.
Ghazkuul wrote: This experiment used 400 Marines for the testing population and dozens more as testers the USMC is only about 182k strong so they used a fairly LARGE sample of the population for testing. There is absolutely no way you could replicate this test hundreds of times.
There are a few solutions to this. First you don't need actual marines. You only need people that have taken proper marine training, been properly rated by marine standards and have done the practical tests in proper marine fashion. If further verification is beyond the means of the USMC or the scope of what they're allowed to do the process could be done by some external entity with non-marines meeting the specifications I outlined under supervision and guidance from the USMC.
Secondly you could do these over a longer time scale. Proper studies in other field sometimes run for 20 or 30 years, depending on what they're testing and the availability proper testing opportunities. If the way this needs to be batched out demands a longer timeline so be it.
From my perspective without proper data a decision either way is kind of arbitrary, by the very definition of not having concrete data. If my government is going to be making arbitrary decisions I'm going tend to prefer they err on the side of avoiding avoiding class discrimination as one of the highest priorities. This is because I tend to see in history a broad trend of these being more socially harmful than anything. I'm going to move over to the side that uses gender alone as the deciding factor, I want thoroughly sound proof before I'm going to get in that corner. That's just one citizens opinion of how he wants his government working and it's as much value or as little value as any other.
It still doesn't make sense though because in the USMC those men would be kicked out for not being physically fit enough. So what your saying is you want to compare male marines who got kicked out for not being good enough to the average woman.
What I want is clean variables. Where they can go "Yeah. We've looked at everything, held all other feasible factors constant it's femaleness alone among them that causes the performance drop". Doing things like checking low performing males is a necessary part of getting that clean data., even if they would never actually be part of the units normally.
This was a test run by the Marines for their own internal purposes not for the broader "Woman combat" issue. The President ordered all Branches to integrate by 2016 unless they request a special waiver. This was done to see if MARINE females were up to the task not FEMALES in general. No offense to other branches but I would rather have a Marine by my side in a firefight then anyone else. (Im not including special forces because Marines aren't special forces).
If you used random civvies in this test it would be meaningless. Before joining the fleet ALL marines are subjected to at the minimum 4 months of training and then at least another month of follow on A Schooling which can take up to 2 years depending on the MOS. There is a reason Marines are classified as Light Infantry, we can operate in every combat environment with minimal support, we carry in everything we need and we never leave a Marine behind. Civvies don't have that mentality and the test would be useless.
Then you get people with the identical 4 months, and 2 years of A schooling program. You replicate everything exactly a person going into the experiment set. That's what a proper model is, you reproduce all important factors. Besides that's just one solution. If externalizing the tests is a non-starter, a longer timeline could be adopted internally. If they USMC can do 500 people per year, in 30 they'll have done 15,000.
No matter if it's females in general, or the USMC specifically the principles remain the same: Rational decisions are made on concrete data. Decisions made without concerete data are arbitrary. Where my government makes arbitrary decisions, I want them erring away from using class distinctions as a sole standard.
No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.
Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.
A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere.
Ghazkuul wrote: No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.
Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.
A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere
Do you understand what data is? Do you understand what working out variables is? It sounds like you think I'm saying if we do this enough suddenly the average woman will be as tall/strong/fast and enduring as the average man. Which is not my point and specific outcomes and already known averages aren't really what I'm talking about.
Ghazkuul wrote: No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.
Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.
A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere
Do you understand what data is? Do you understand what working out variables is? It sounds like you think I'm saying if we do this enough suddenly the average woman will be as tall/strong/fast and enduring as the average man. Which is not my point and specific outcomes and already known averages aren't really what I'm talking about.
Then what your talking about doesnt matter. this isnt a statistics class or a social experiment. This is Americas Elite light infantry. If you want to correlate a bunch of useless data feel free to, but don't force the military into some ridiculous PC campaign
Ghazkuul wrote: No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.
Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.
A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere
Do you understand what data is? Do you understand what working out variables is? It sounds like you think I'm saying if we do this enough suddenly the average woman will be as tall/strong/fast and enduring as the average man. Which is not my point and specific outcomes and already known averages aren't really what I'm talking about.
Then what your talking about doesnt matter. this isnt a statistics class or a social experiment. This is Americas Elite light infantry. If you want to correlate a bunch of useless data feel free to, but don't force the military into some ridiculous PC campaign
You've said nothing here. There is literally nothing to respond to.Nothing about testing data, and verifying ideas can be "PC". Like if the data comes back "Women are worthless at this" then that's the data, however unpalatable it may be to some worldviews. It's about taking an objective, empirical view so we don't have be making decisions on the basis of subjective values.
-Shrike- wrote: The average is irrelevant when we're supposed to be comparing humans that have passed a set of (hopefully identical) standards.
except that the averages do matter. For every male that gets hurt training in the infantry 6 females will get hurt doing the same thing. This greatly reduces combat readiness. I don't know if you were in the military or deployed but let me tell you how Fething terrible it is to have to hot swap new personnel into a unit about to deploy simply because someone got hurt. We had a Marine get hurt before we deployed, the Marine that replaced him was a liability for the first 1-3 months because he didn't know our unit or how to function in it.
Why should the Defense department have to waste its funding putting females through these courses with such a high failure rate when that money could be used to pay for programs and equipment that is needed.
Are we going to increase the DoD funding to allow for females to have their Equal opportunity?
Ghazkuul wrote: No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.
Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.
A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere
Do you understand what data is? Do you understand what working out variables is? It sounds like you think I'm saying if we do this enough suddenly the average woman will be as tall/strong/fast and enduring as the average man. Which is not my point and specific outcomes and already known averages aren't really what I'm talking about.
Then what your talking about doesnt matter. this isnt a statistics class or a social experiment. This is Americas Elite light infantry. If you want to correlate a bunch of useless data feel free to, but don't force the military into some ridiculous PC campaign
You've said nothing here. There is literally nothing to respond to.Nothing about testing data, and verifying ideas can be "PC". Like if the data comes back "Women are worthless at this" then that's the data, however unpalatable it may be to some worldviews. It's about taking an objective, empirical view so we don't have be making decisions on the basis of subjective values.
The data is already in, it has been in for years now. Woman CAN CUT IT! they are good enough to do any job in the Military. The problem is that the numbers that can cut the mustard are far to LOW to make it worth the effort. What more proof do you want? would you like a few dozen more tests to prove what we already know?
I understand you like the whole idea of testing everything to find out a bunch of useless data but what good will it do?
The data is already in, it has been in for years now. Woman CAN CUT IT! they are good enough to do any job in the Military. The problem is that the numbers that can cut the mustard are far to LOW to make it worth the effort. What more proof do you want? would you like a few dozen more tests to prove what we already know?
Again I'll just take your assertions at face value for the sake of making things simpler. Though I don't think your conclusion is the most reasonable one to draw from your assertions. What you're describing here is not case of the rates being "too LOW to make it worth the effort" but for developing filtration & verification systems that can catch that top % of women with fewer costs. I'd rather throw some money short term on developing a process that can find that top .5% or whatever it is at reasonable costs in the future, than just deny them the opportunity for the sake of convenience.
The data is already in, it has been in for years now. Woman CAN CUT IT! they are good enough to do any job in the Military. The problem is that the numbers that can cut the mustard are far to LOW to make it worth the effort. What more proof do you want? would you like a few dozen more tests to prove what we already know?
Again I'll just take your assertions at face value for the sake of making things simpler. Though I don't think your conclusion is the most reasonable one to draw from your assertions. What you're describing here is not case of the rates being "too LOW to make it worth the effort" but for developing filtration & verification system that can catch that top % of women with fewer costs. I'd rather throw a couple billion on developing a process that can find that top .5% or whatever at reasonable costs in the future, than just deny them the opportunity for the sake of convenience.
I guess you missed that part where I pointed out that females were 6x more likely to be injured. I would rather not spend Billions finding that .5% of females who want to join the military who would be capable of doing infantry jobs.
Currently Woman make up 7.11% of the USMC that would mean about 13k ish females and .5% of that would be about 60 females. Your willing to spend billions to allow 60 woman the opportunity to join the Infantry, which historically the rate is very low so your looking at even a fraction of this.
The data is already in, it has been in for years now. Woman CAN CUT IT! they are good enough to do any job in the Military. The problem is that the numbers that can cut the mustard are far to LOW to make it worth the effort. What more proof do you want? would you like a few dozen more tests to prove what we already know?
Again I'll just take your assertions at face value for the sake of making things simpler. Though I don't think your conclusion is the most reasonable one to draw from your assertions. What you're describing here is not case of the rates being "too LOW to make it worth the effort" but for developing filtration & verification system that can catch that top % of women with fewer costs. I'd rather throw a couple billion on developing a process that can find that top .5% or whatever at reasonable costs in the future, than just deny them the opportunity for the sake of convenience.
I guess you missed that part where I pointed out that females were 6x more likely to be injured. I would rather not spend Billions finding that .5% of females who want to join the military who would be capable of doing infantry jobs.
Currently Woman make up 7.11% of the USMC that would mean about 13k ish females and .5% of that would be about 60 females. Your willing to spend billions to allow 60 woman the opportunity to join the Infantry, which historically the rate is very low so your looking at even a fraction of this.
Well I edited my post because I'm sure it could be done on less than "Billions" that was just the first "Government Budget" number than came to my head, no an estimation of what I'd mean as a reasonable price tag.
Regardless if we're just getting down to the nitty gritty practicals at this point, the tides of history are already flowing in that direction. Even if it's only due the much derided "PC" pressure you're going on about, Since it's going to happen may as well have as good a system as possible to facilitate it.
I actually don't think it is going to happen. The Army might one day cave but I hope that the USMC does not. Sacrificing lives and costing people loved ones is not a price I am willing to pay so that my daughter can have the chance to join the infantry.
But I wonder if training had any element to it. Or preparedness possibly also. Who exactly was used in the tests and did anyone work to game the system. I know enough to know that any Commander that knew ahead of time when there was testing would try to gain as much advantage as possible to look better.
Or were there statistics pulled in the general sense.
Now biology you can't really game so those facts are for the most part facts. Yet I wonder if they are also just a symptom of how the society raises its women to believe they are "lesser" than men.
Something like that, struggling to articulate my point at the moment.
But I wonder if training had any element to it. Or preparedness possibly also. Who exactly was used in the tests and did anyone work to game the system. I know enough to know that any Commander that knew ahead of time when there was testing would try to gain as much advantage as possible to look better.
Or were there statistics pulled in the general sense.
Now biology you can't really game so those facts are for the most part facts. Yet I wonder if they are also just a symptom of how the society raises its women to believe they are "lesser" than men.
Something like that, struggling to articulate my point at the moment.
Read the various articles and documents at the links in the topic. They answer a lot of your questions.
Both men and women should be held to the same standards. If a woman can pass the same test as a man can, they are equally qualified, period. The way of nature means that fewer women will reach that standard than men, of course. But that's okay, because it's equal.
Having women do easier tests should not be a thing, and is frankly offensive.
Of course, there are women who can reach fairly high standards!
Spoiler:
Guy who made a comment on another page on that website wrote:As an Army NCO currently in with two tours, and currently on my second in Afghanistan, I would have this to say to the naysayers of this decision. This of course, does not account for Marines, who's branch I'm obviously less familiar with. - There are virtually no Light Infantry units (dismounted, on foot) left in the Army. With the advancement of civilization, the ways wars are fought has advanced as well. Therefore, mechanizing troops almost always makes sense. The exception to being unmounted, would be for a special operation (except for unconventional warfare, such as the current conflict, where, for example, Key Leader Engagements are one of the top tactics). Which is why the 75th Ranger Regiment, and her three battallions, are the only Light Infantry Units we have, totaling about 2,000 Soldiers. - Mechanized infantry is the standard now, and it's not hard to see why so I won't insult anyone's intelligence (I also won't dwell on the Army's Physical Readiness Training, but you can use it as a reference to my next point if need be [FM 7-22]). And I say that to say this- The Soldier's physical profile is focused on dexterity, cardiovascular, and injury prevention, moreso than strength training, as we have devoloped technology and equipment that calls for more of the former, and less of the latter. So that should make the "Obama will set different standards" point, near mute, in a tactical perspective. I'm not getting into ethics on that point. - Next, if a soldier completes the training necessary to become an operator of a specific MOS (job), which has been created by the Army, then that is all that should be said. A Soldier who has met or exceeded course standards is successful, and that's all there is to it. So, in a case where a Soldier has become unmounted and under hostile threat, the Army has said that the Soldier is capable of handling the situation to the best of the Soldier's ability, as they have met the standards they have imposed. Dragging a wounded Soldier in full battle rattle (full gear) is easy for no one, at no time, under any circumstance. Especially when 7.62 caliber bullets are whizzing from god knows where, in 140 degree weather, after being hit by a 155mm shell made into an IED. Strength plays a role in the situation, but more importantly, mental training. ("Battle-mind" as formerly known, along with other aspects of training, which I won't get into). And we need not to dwell on size of the common male and female for two reasons. 1. Once again, they met or exceeded the standards. 2. There are male combat Soldiers who are extremely small in size. Extremely. - I refer to a Soldier only by their gender when explaining to another Soldier who they're supposed to be looking for, talking to, etc. "Female-type", or "Male-type". Likewise, I have two female subordinates, and they are Soldiers. Nothing more, nothing less. I expect everything out of them that I expect from my male Soldiers, and they perform just as well. It is bizarre actually, because I have never paid any attention to them being a specific gender, until writing this. Alas, this will not, cannot, interfere with their treatment. - In closing, "I will be FAIR and IMPARTIAL when recommending both rewards and punishment." - The Creed of the Noncommisioned Officer A Soldier is a Soldier is a Soldier.
In that spoilered bit... there is a bit wrong with that.... we actually have a bunch of "light infantry" units. It's just that, yes, the often fight out of humvees or other vehicles.
In a conventional war, the 82nd and 101st are both specialized, but still light infantry type units.
4th ID was, when I was in, about the only fully mechanized infantry unit, but with the BCT concept has gone a bit more in the direction that 2nd ID did: 2 "light" brigades, and 2 "heavy" brigades.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: In that spoilered bit... there is a bit wrong with that.... we actually have a bunch of "light infantry" units. It's just that, yes, the often fight out of humvees or other vehicles.
In a conventional war, the 82nd and 101st are both specialized, but still light infantry type units.
4th ID was, when I was in, about the only fully mechanized infantry unit, but with the BCT concept has gone a bit more in the direction that 2nd ID did: 2 "light" brigades, and 2 "heavy" brigades.
Combat Brigades: 30 at the end of 2017 9 Armored Brigade Combat Teams 7 Stryker Brigade Combat Teams 7 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (Light) 4 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (Airborne) 3 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (Air Assault)
That is 13 IBCTs, all of which are 'light fighters'. And you also have the 75th, and all the SF groups. The majority of our BCTs are light. Even the Stryker and Mech guys fight dismounted.
My son is in the IBCT which is part of 3ID.
The spoiler-ed part also does not take into account the injury rate. Stating 'if they pass the training they are qualified' chucks out the fact that once in the units females will have a higher percentage of injuries, and those injuries will typically be worse than what the males suffer. That has very real effects on unit readiness and also on retaining quality females so they can advance to higher positions of leadership.
I also love how he knows "There are male combat Soldiers who are extremely small in size. Extremely.". Yep. And pound for pound they have more muscle mass/strength and less body fat than a female of the same height/weight.
Heck folks look at WHO collected the data in the study this topic is about. HINT: It wasn't just the USMC that collected and analyzed the data. It was the University of Pittsburgh's Neuromuscular Research Laboratory. I'm gonna assume they knew what they were doing.
DarkLink wrote: It does illustrate a very important point about "as long as they meet the standard". Meeting the standard is just a minimum requirement. We don't want people to "meet the standard", we want people to exceed the standard.
This just sounds like a certain scene from Office Space.
If the females met the standards, and their performance in the mixed units wasn't "good enough", then you raise the standards.
It's a study of 400 people in total, and only 100 of them women. For what they're trying to demonstrate (or not), it's statistically irrelevant, even for the USMC.
The sample size simply isn't large enough. For an organization the size of the USMC, you would need a population of roughly 600 (and that's allowing for a 95% confidence level with a 4-point interva, higher confidence requires significantly higher numbers of subjects), but of appropriate diversity. Don't, for example, include 100 female "average performers" with 500 "top performer" men.
The whole paper is some 1000 pages long, so I don't have time to read through it but, as a data analyst, this was the first thing that leapt off the page at me. The sample size is too small for statistical relevance.
Psienesis wrote: It's a study of 400 people in total, and only 100 of them women. For what they're trying to demonstrate (or not), it's statistically irrelevant, even for the USMC.
The sample size simply isn't large enough. For an organization the size of the USMC, you would need a population of roughly 600 (and that's allowing for a 95% confidence level with a 4-point interva, higher confidence requires significantly higher numbers of subjects), but of appropriate diversity. Don't, for example, include 100 female "average performers" with 500 "top performer" men.
The whole paper is some 1000 pages long, so I don't have time to read through it but, as a data analyst, this was the first thing that leapt off the page at me. The sample size is too small for statistical relevance.
Did you subtract out the non-infantry portion of the Marines to get your numbers? Did you control for the low percent of females over all in the Corps?
The data is already in, it has been in for years now. Woman CAN CUT IT! they are good enough to do any job in the Military. The problem is that the numbers that can cut the mustard are far to LOW to make it worth the effort. What more proof do you want? would you like a few dozen more tests to prove what we already know?
Again I'll just take your assertions at face value for the sake of making things simpler. Though I don't think your conclusion is the most reasonable one to draw from your assertions. What you're describing here is not case of the rates being "too LOW to make it worth the effort" but for developing filtration & verification system that can catch that top % of women with fewer costs. I'd rather throw a couple billion on developing a process that can find that top .5% or whatever at reasonable costs in the future, than just deny them the opportunity for the sake of convenience.
I guess you missed that part where I pointed out that females were 6x more likely to be injured. I would rather not spend Billions finding that .5% of females who want to join the military who would be capable of doing infantry jobs.
Currently Woman make up 7.11% of the USMC that would mean about 13k ish females and .5% of that would be about 60 females. Your willing to spend billions to allow 60 woman the opportunity to join the Infantry, which historically the rate is very low so your looking at even a fraction of this.
Well I edited my post because I'm sure it could be done on less than "Billions" that was just the first "Government Budget" number than came to my head, no an estimation of what I'd mean as a reasonable price tag.
Regardless if we're just getting down to the nitty gritty practicals at this point, the tides of history are already flowing in that direction. Even if it's only due the much derided "PC" pressure you're going on about, Since it's going to happen may as well have as good a system as possible to facilitate it.
Yep. Also a good idea to have a better system in place to facilitate all the extra burials this PC garbage is going to cause.
Psienesis wrote: It's a study of 400 people in total, and only 100 of them women. For what they're trying to demonstrate (or not), it's statistically irrelevant, even for the USMC.
The sample size simply isn't large enough. For an organization the size of the USMC, you would need a population of roughly 600 (and that's allowing for a 95% confidence level with a 4-point interva, higher confidence requires significantly higher numbers of subjects), but of appropriate diversity. Don't, for example, include 100 female "average performers" with 500 "top performer" men.
The whole paper is some 1000 pages long, so I don't have time to read through it but, as a data analyst, this was the first thing that leapt off the page at me. The sample size is too small for statistical relevance.
Did you subtract out the non-infantry portion of the Marines to get your numbers? Did you control for the low percent of females over all in the Corps?
As a data analyst, I suspect you did neither.
Not necessary for the project since every Marine (just like the Army) is, at their basis, an infantry soldier.
however, for the break-down (numbers taken from 2013 report, only one I have available atm):
2590 Infantry Officers
32,749 Infantry Enlisted
At a 95% confidence level with a 4-point interval requires...
That's.... no. Sorry. That's not how population statistics like this work.
For a 99% Confidence level with a 4-point interval, of a population pool this size, you need roughly 3% of the total population to respond.
At 95/4, it's roughly 600....
Which is still larger than the sample size used in the report, so my point remains: The sample size is too small for solid statistical relevance. With it being 34% smaller than target, that leads to the potential of significant statistical anomalies.
There's also the question if the male soldiers participating are already from infantry MOS where the females were not (once again, a diversity issue) and similar questions. Again, might be in the document, but it's 1000 pages and I don't have time to read it, but it's questions like that what should be asked when things like this come up.
Psienesis wrote: That's.... no. Sorry. That's not how population statistics like this work.
For a 99% Confidence level with a 4-point interval, of a population pool this size, you need roughly 3% of the total population to respond.
At 95/4, it's roughly 600....
Which is still larger than the sample size used in the report, so my point remains: The sample size is too small for solid statistical relevance. With it being 34% smaller than target, that leads to the potential of significant statistical anomalies.
There's also the question if the male soldiers participating are already from infantry MOS where the females were not (once again, a diversity issue) and similar questions. Again, might be in the document, but it's 1000 pages and I don't have time to read it, but it's questions like that what should be asked when things like this come up.
Part of the problem is simply finding enough female volunteers. At least as far as IOC is concerned, they didn't get as many female volunteers as they were hoping for, and they were pushing it pretty hard and encouraging females to volunteer on a regular basis.
Ok, I have a group of 400 highschoolers (for argument; they are all male). First thing I do is perform a series of tests on each individual to establish their capabilities in a number of areas (say; academic ones). I then assign each one a percentage score for each capability based on where their results fall in the group (100% for the maximum capabilities, 0% for the minimum).
Now I break the 400 up into 4 groups (100 strong each), we'll call them A, B, C, & D. In the first 3 groups I ensure that the individuals are selected randomly, with no reference to the capability scores. For group D however I don't select randomly, I ensure that none of the individuals selected had capability scores above 50% in most areas, and in some areas, none above 20%.
So now I have 4 groups of Highschoolers. I combine groups A & B into a new group X, and groups C & D into a new group Y. I then subject both new groups to a variety of group tasks related to the original capability tests, and rank their results.
Now tell me; which group is going to do better in the final tasks; X or Y?
Pendix wrote: Ok, I have a group of 400 highschoolers (for argument; they are all male). First thing I do is perform a series of tests on each individual to establish their capabilities in a number of areas (say; academic ones). I then assign each one a percentage score for each capability based on where their results fall in the group (100% for the maximum capabilities, 0% for the minimum).
Now I break the 400 up into 4 groups (100 strong each), we'll call them A, B, C, & D. In the first 3 groups I ensure that the individuals are selected randomly, with no reference to the capability scores. For group D however I don't select randomly, I ensure that none of the individuals selected had capability scores above 50% in most areas, and in some areas, none above 20%.
So now I have 4 groups of Highschoolers. I combine groups A & B into a new group X, and groups C & D into a new group Y. I then subject both new groups to a variety of group tasks related to the original capability tests, and rank their results.
Now tell me; which group is going to do better in the final tasks; X or Y?
Are you trying to say the test was rigged and the female team got the worst females out of the selection?
Or are you trying to say the mixed team naturally gets lower scores because of it's female half (which tends to be the case) and the result was obvious?
Most Marine regiments are classified as "Light" but that does not mean they are not mechanized. We just dont have as much heavy arse as a Heavy infantry unit.
And the point about not needing to haul heavy loads? please tell me where the Feth you are in Afghanistan where you aren't doing regular foot patrols? because I can tell you that is where you are getting your arse kicked. It is markedly easier to spot IEDs while on foot compared to on a vehicle patrol. Also COIN Operations call for more foot patrols and less mounted patrols so...yeah theres that.
Fine by me. What is the % of American women who can out preform a foreign military is all I care about. 69% of willing volunteers is better than 100% of unwilling conscripts in my book.
Swastakowey wrote: Are you trying to say the test was rigged and the female team got the worst females out of the selection?
Or are you trying to say the mixed team naturally gets lower scores because of it's female half (which tends to be the case) and the result was obvious?
Just a little lost as to the point.
The latter.
Principally; if they already knew things like this:
Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males.
and this:
Aerobic Capacity: Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile for males.
going in, then the study has done little except demonstrate a forgone conclusion.
Hell; the fact that the mixed units preformed as well as the all-male units in 31% of the tasks is pretty impressive considering the inherent mathematical hamstring.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Fine by me. What is the % of American women who can out preform a foreign military is all I care about. 69% of willing volunteers is better than 100% of unwilling conscripts in my book.
Swastakowey wrote: Are you trying to say the test was rigged and the female team got the worst females out of the selection?
Or are you trying to say the mixed team naturally gets lower scores because of it's female half (which tends to be the case) and the result was obvious?
Just a little lost as to the point.
The latter.
Principally; if they already knew things like this:
Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males.
and this:
Aerobic Capacity: Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile for males.
going in, then the study has done little except demonstrate a forgone conclusion.
Hell; the fact that the mixed units preformed as well as the all-male units in 31% of the tasks is pretty impressive considering the inherent mathematical hamstring.
Did you not read the article? in those 31% of tasks they weren't always using woman for the tests. They specifically mention how they would let males carry the wounded out for the firemans carry. This means that its far less then 31% of tasks.
Ghazkuul wrote: Did you not read the article? in those 31% of tasks they weren't always using woman for the tests. They specifically mention how they would let males carry the wounded out for the firemans carry. This means that its far less then 31% of tasks.
I don't imagine the all-male units used their weakest members to carry the wounded either. Not that this interferes with my main point; that (broadly speaking) the outcome was a forgone conclusion.
Ghazkuul wrote: Did you not read the article? in those 31% of tasks they weren't always using woman for the tests. They specifically mention how they would let males carry the wounded out for the firemans carry. This means that its far less then 31% of tasks.
I don't imagine the all-male units used their weakest members to carry the wounded either. Not that this interferes with my main point; that (broadly speaking) the outcome was a forgone conclusion.
Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Fine by me. What is the % of American women who can out preform a foreign military is all I care about. 69% of willing volunteers is better than 100% of unwilling conscripts in my book.
Swastakowey wrote: Are you trying to say the test was rigged and the female team got the worst females out of the selection?
Or are you trying to say the mixed team naturally gets lower scores because of it's female half (which tends to be the case) and the result was obvious?
Just a little lost as to the point.
The latter.
Principally; if they already knew things like this:
Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males.
and this:
Aerobic Capacity: Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile for males.
going in, then the study has done little except demonstrate a forgone conclusion.
Hell; the fact that the mixed units preformed as well as the all-male units in 31% of the tasks is pretty impressive considering the inherent mathematical hamstring.
Did you not read the article? in those 31% of tasks they weren't always using woman for the tests. They specifically mention how they would let males carry the wounded out for the firemans carry. This means that its far less then 31% of tasks.
The headline of the post? Though I should have put the word "quality" or "output" after the percentages to be more accurate. Point being, I'd rather have a troop under my command who wanted to be there and put forward all they have than someone who didn't regardless of sex. I saw enough of those in BT.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.
*headdesk*
Sorry dude, I live in the real world and have been at the pointy end of the stick. When you have been there you can "headdesk" as much as you like.
I still don't see how it might be the couple in a hundred women who can meet the standards (pitifully inadequate though the minimum standards are) RIGHT to serve in the infantry when it is the DUTY of male Americans over the age of 18 to register for the draft. Yes I know we haven't drafted anyone in quite some time, yet the system is still in place. If all things were truly equal women would have to register for the draft, make up whatever percentage the female demographic equals within the draft class and be funneled to the infantry at the same percentage. Do we really want 50ish% of our infantry being whichever unlucky females get their numbers called?
The whole point is to be equal, right? We're throwing a social experiment into something that really isn't a fun and games fuzzy feeling reality. I wish this study would stop the insanity. But the Secretary of the Navy has already said he sees nothing stopping the full integration of females into Marine combat units. It's a done deal as far as I can see. The proof of how bad an idea this is will (or won't I guess) come the first time it gets actually tried under prolonged combat. Fail or not, it will still never be equality so long as this one young woman gets to choose to do so and the boys in her graduating class are all forced to do so.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.
*headdesk*
Sorry dude, I live in the real world and have been at the pointy end of the stick. When you have been there you can "headdesk" as much as you like.
Have you ever considered that it's not necessarily SJWs arguing for the potential for women to be included in combat roles? Also, it's not actually obligatory to have combat experience to see that the leap from a well-thought out point to "fething SJWs and their equality BS, I'm not putting up with this!" is a very silly route to take.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.
*headdesk*
Sorry dude, I live in the real world and have been at the pointy end of the stick. When you have been there you can "headdesk" as much as you like.
Have you ever considered that it's not necessarily SJWs arguing for the potential for women to be included in combat roles? Also, it's not actually obligatory to have combat experience to see that the leap from a well-thought out point to "fething SJWs and their equality BS, I'm not putting up with this!" is a very silly route to take.
Well I haven't put it in those exact words but pretty much thats how it is. you can have your happy warm fuzzy feelings with the rest of the world im fine with that. But the second you put Marines lives in danger for a SJW BS movement I get upset. It wont be your friends dying to prove the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As A side note, I can't think of a single female marine I worked with who thought this was a good idea.
You haven't met any female marines who are saying that female marines is a good idea?
Spoiler:
Side note: If it is okay to make remarks about SJWs and their warm fuzzy feelings, that means it is fine for me to make remarks about tryhard war pigs, right?
Not referring to anyone in specific, just wondering. Fair should be fair after all.
Obviously. I would not have taken part so much in this debate otherwise.
Have you? It proves little other than what we already knew: men generally are better at soldiering. Why are everyone acting like this is news or somehow difficult to account for?
Adjust the tests accordingly. Design them equally for both genders. Man or woman, if they pass the required test for a role, they are qualified for it.
If you need at least 60 in a test to become a soldier, and men generally score 60-100 where women score 60-80, obviously men's performance will be better. This is not shocking. A man who gets 60 in a strength test will not perform better than a woman who gets 60, though. There's just more men who get higher than 60. And it's not like that matters, because the test only demands 60, and 60 level men are fully accepted. Contrary to popular belief, the article only said that men generally performs better. To reiterate, it does NOT say that a man who gets a 60 in a pullwoundedmate test performs better than a woman who also gets a 60. It just means men are more likely to get even higher (which again, doesn't matter, because you only demanded 60 to begin with, so don't set your standards lower than what you are happy with.)
Obviously that means that more men will pass, just as more men will try to begin with. That is not a problem. Neither is women in the infantry, because there are women around who can and will perform up to par. The matter is just setting the correct standards (which, again, should be equal.)
Anyway, I trust the armed forces to make a well-reasoned decision based on the data and situations rather than external political pressure from equality groups or the gleeful men's rights activists.
Ashiraya wrote: Obviously. I would not have taken part so much in this debate otherwise.
Have you? It proves little other than what we already knew: men generally are better at soldiering. Why are everyone acting like this is news or somehow difficult to account for?
Adjust the tests accordingly. Design them equally for both genders. Man or woman, if they pass the required test for a role, they are qualified for it.
If you need at least 60 in a test to become a soldier, and men generally score 60-100 where women score 60-80, obviously men's performance will be better. This is not shocking. A man who gets 60 in a strength test will not perform better than a woman who gets 60, though. There's just more men who get higher than 60. And it's not like that matters, because the test only demands 60, and 60 level men are fully accepted. Contrary to popular belief, the article only said that men generally performs better. To reiterate, it does NOT say that a man who gets a 60 in a pullwoundedmate test performs better than a woman who also gets a 60. It just means men are more likely to get even higher (which again, doesn't matter, because you only demanded 60 to begin with, so don't set your standards lower than what you are happy with.)
Obviously that means that more men will pass, just as more men will try to begin with. That is not a problem. Neither is women in the infantry, because there are women around who can and will perform up to par. The matter is just setting the correct standards (which, again, should be equal.)
Anyway, I trust the armed forces to make a well-reasoned decision based on the data and situations rather than external political pressure from equality groups or the gleeful men's rights activists.
except that Marines don't operate by the minimums as I have pointed out before. If you got under a 1st class PFT you were failing, thats how Marines work, that is why we are so damned good at what we do. Also you completely ignore the fact that training those handful of woman who want to be infantry would cost significantly more then training a similar number of men. The failure rate is higher, the injury rate is higher and the overall performance level of those who do qualify is lower. So as I said, this is just a warm and fuzzy by SJWs and doesn't take into account actual combat. I dont want the guy/girl next to me to be barely qualified, I want them to excel at what they do.
Ghazkuul wrote: except that Marines don't operate by the minimums as I have pointed out before. If you got under a 1st class PFT you were failing, thats how Marines work, that is why we are so damned good at what we do. Also you completely ignore the fact that training those handful of woman who want to be infantry would cost significantly more then training a similar number of men. The failure rate is higher, the injury rate is higher and the overall performance level of those who do qualify is lower. So as I said, this is just a warm and fuzzy by SJWs and doesn't take into account actual combat. I dont want the guy/girl next to me to be barely qualified, I want them to excel at what they do.
Nonsense. If passing the tests is not good enough, then you are bad at designing tests. Make a harder test until you're happy serving with someone who passed it.
That is the point of the test to begin with.
If you need to score 60+ to pass, but those who score 65 are not good enough for you because you think only 70+ is good enough, then make the damn test 70+ to pass to begin with instead of telling the 60-69s that you pass except not really lol.
And then don't refuse those who did get 70+ just because they don't have a dick.
And take the 'fuzzy SJW' passive-aggressive gak elsewhere. If you can't make arguments without throwing snide labels at those who disagree, then don't make arguments.
Ghazkuul wrote: except that Marines don't operate by the minimums as I have pointed out before. If you got under a 1st class PFT you were failing, thats how Marines work, that is why we are so damned good at what we do. Also you completely ignore the fact that training those handful of woman who want to be infantry would cost significantly more then training a similar number of men. The failure rate is higher, the injury rate is higher and the overall performance level of those who do qualify is lower. So as I said, this is just a warm and fuzzy by SJWs and doesn't take into account actual combat. I dont want the guy/girl next to me to be barely qualified, I want them to excel at what they do.
Nonsense. If passing the tests is not good enough, then you are bad at designing tests. Make a harder test until you're happy serving with someone who passed it.
That is the point of the test to begin with.
If you need to score 60+ to pass, but those who score 65 are not good enough for you because you think only 70+ is good enough, then make the damn test 70+ to pass to begin with instead of telling the 60-69s that you pass except not really lol.
And take the 'fuzzy SJW' passive-aggressive gak elsewhere. If you can't make arguments without being snide against those who disagree, then don't make arguments.
Exactly. If you can show that women who have the same scores as men, accounting for all other factors, are worse for no other reason except being female, then you might have a point. But that's not what you or this study have shown.
Ghazkuul wrote: except that Marines don't operate by the minimums as I have pointed out before. If you got under a 1st class PFT you were failing, thats how Marines work, that is why we are so damned good at what we do. Also you completely ignore the fact that training those handful of woman who want to be infantry would cost significantly more then training a similar number of men. The failure rate is higher, the injury rate is higher and the overall performance level of those who do qualify is lower. So as I said, this is just a warm and fuzzy by SJWs and doesn't take into account actual combat. I dont want the guy/girl next to me to be barely qualified, I want them to excel at what they do.
Nonsense. If passing the tests is not good enough, then you are bad at designing tests. Make a harder test until you're happy serving with someone who passed it.
That is the point of the test to begin with.
And take the 'fuzzy SJW' passive-aggressive gak elsewhere. If you can't make arguments without being snide against those who disagree, then don't make arguments.
1: Im not the one designing the tests, I am just one of those who had to undergo them frequently.
2: im not directing the SJW comments at you as much as the general populace of my country who thinks its a good idea for combat to be about equality and not survival.
3: The test is designed to to show the Minimum required to function. Every individual unit and leader will have different minimums. For instance I had a battlion commander who thought 1st Class PFTs weren't good enough it had to be a 250+ or else you were on remedial. The Corps sets the "official" minimum and then units have the authority to set higher minimums for their Marines. With that said I have never been to any unit or heard of one where anything less then 1st class was considered failing.
I have made several rational points, I have pointed to the massive increase in cost per training cycle, i have pointed to the massive increase in injury rate and I have pointed out how this will negatively effect a units combat readiness, you just choose to gloss over those facts by saying "Spend more money on testing, make the tests easier".
Ghazkuul wrote: except that Marines don't operate by the minimums as I have pointed out before. If you got under a 1st class PFT you were failing, thats how Marines work, that is why we are so damned good at what we do. Also you completely ignore the fact that training those handful of woman who want to be infantry would cost significantly more then training a similar number of men. The failure rate is higher, the injury rate is higher and the overall performance level of those who do qualify is lower. So as I said, this is just a warm and fuzzy by SJWs and doesn't take into account actual combat. I dont want the guy/girl next to me to be barely qualified, I want them to excel at what they do.
Nonsense. If passing the tests is not good enough, then you are bad at designing tests. Make a harder test until you're happy serving with someone who passed it.
That is the point of the test to begin with.
If you need to score 60+ to pass, but those who score 65 are not good enough for you because you think only 70+ is good enough, then make the damn test 70+ to pass to begin with instead of telling the 60-69s that you pass except not really lol.
And take the 'fuzzy SJW' passive-aggressive gak elsewhere. If you can't make arguments without being snide against those who disagree, then don't make arguments.
Exactly. If you can show that women who have the same scores as men, accounting for all other factors, are worse for no other reason except being female, then you might have a point. But that's not what you or this study have shown.
I have never said that nor tried to argue that point except by pointing out injury statistics. But keep trying to paint me as a sexist.
You can compensate for injuries suffered by, say, unusually short men (who can pass the tests, and who do serve in your army today) but apparently it's a no-go for even the strongest of women.
If they pass the tests, they are qualified. If you think that's not enough, make harder tests. It really is not more complicated than that.
Ashiraya wrote: It is sexist, because you can compensate for injuries suffered by, say, unusually short men (who can pass the tests, and who do serve in your army today) but apparently it's a no-go for even the strongest of women.
Ashiraya wrote: It is sexist, because you can compensate for injuries suffered by, say, unusually short men (who can pass the tests, and who do serve in your army today) but apparently it's a no-go for even the strongest of women.
except that "unusually short males" do not suffer injuries at a higher rate then women. If you can show me a study that says this is so please let me see it. The reason for more injuries in females compared to males is due to how our bodies are built.
The strongest of women can pass the tests and can hack it in combat and all the other nonsense, I have never disputed that, the only thing I keep saying is that for those handful of women to get into infantry the US DoD will have to spend MILLIONS if not BILLIONS more dollars on training women for Combat MOS because of the higher failure rate and higher injury rate. It is not cost effective in the slightest, and even after those handful of women make it, they will be 6 times more likely to suffer an injury and be sidelined from combat anyway.
We ran a recon test for EVERY member of my battalion, male and female. only a couple of females made it through out of the whole battalion, and 2 of them were crippled for the rest of there Marine Careers. 1 was forced out due to injured and 1 was Medsepped.
The alleged dreadful cost increase in testing (which I have yet to see any sign of) is highly unlikely to be anything more than a drop in the ocean. You spent 610 billion dollars on your military in 2013. Adjusting test numbers so that they can reflect the recruit's skills without having to make the assumption that they are male will result in additional expenses, but I strongly doubt those expenses are meaningful in context.
Plus, adjusting the tests so that the results become more accurate is a good thing, regardless of the gender question.
As for the additional injury cost, well, the question of whether it is worth it is down to your leaders to answer. I think it is.
Ashiraya wrote: The alleged dreadful cost increase in testing (which I have yet to see any sign of) is highly unlikely to be anything more than a drop in the ocean. You spent 610 billion dollars on your military in 2013. Adjusting test numbers so that they can reflect the recruit's skills without having to make the assumption that they are male will result in additional expenses, but I strongly doubt those expenses are meaningful in context.
Plus, adjusting the tests so that the results become more accurate is a good thing, regardless of the gender question.
USMC budget for 2016 = 24Billion. So......yeah it would be pretty significant.
Actually, the study did show higher injury rates for females, even those who scored high on the basic physical tests. It also showed on average they had less endurance then the males when performing many of the same tasks.
One issue is, even the females that meet whatever standard you set, be it a 60, a 70 or whatever, are gonna get hurt more often and worse than their male counterparts over time.
This ends up having the exact opposite effect of what is claimed to be a goal of this whole effort; breaking the 'brass ceiling'. If you invalid out your best females earlier in their careers, less of the good ones make it into senior leadership positions.
Redesigning how promotions are worked and what positions are considered 'key' for further promotion and higher positions would be a much better way of addressing the situation. For example, when BG Richards (female army aviator) became the ADC-M for 1st Cav, it showed you did not need to be armor or infantry to be an effective ADC-M. She has done great and wonderful things as a senior leader and will continue to to do more. Had she gone infantry as a 2LT, the odds are very good she would have been broken enough by the time she was an LTC that she never would have gotten the chance.
@Ghaz...you do realize you are arguing with a 17 y/o girl with minimal real world experience and NO military experience, right?
It's a complete waste of your time and her's tbh. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that at absolute best maybe 10% of the female population has the potential to carry out Combat Arms tasks with the proper training, but it'll be a hell of a lot harder for them than men and probably utterly pointless.
CptJake wrote: Actually, the study did show higher injury rates for females, even those who scored high on the basic physical tests. It also showed on average they had less endurance then the males when performing many of the same tasks.
One issue is, even the females that meet whatever standard you set, be it a 60, a 70 or whatever, are gonna get hurt more often and worse than their male counterparts over time.
That is not something they could help. You gave them a test and they passed it. The increased rate of injury is unfortunate, but I doubt it is as disastrous in practice as people are saying.
CptJake wrote: Actually, the study did show higher injury rates for females, even those who scored high on the basic physical tests. It also showed on average they had less endurance then the males when performing many of the same tasks.
One issue is, even the females that meet whatever standard you set, be it a 60, a 70 or whatever, are gonna get hurt more often and worse than their male counterparts over time.
well jake according to Ash that doesn't matter. and I will label you a SJW now that you said that btw Ash. If you think its ok for people to suffer debilitating injuries because equality is that important to you, then you are in fact a SJW.
Ghazkuul wrote: If you think its ok for people to suffer debilitating injuries because equality is that important to you, then you are in fact a SJW.
They knew the risks when they took the job. Going for combat duty means you should be prepared for injury. Is that not obvious?
trexmeyer wrote: @Ghaz...you do realize you are arguing with a 17 y/o girl with minimal real world experience and NO military experience, right?
Believe it or not, what someone says is more important than who says it.
But sorry for not belonging to the US soldier circlejerk clique. If I find a male soldier friend who says the exact same things I do, will you take it more seriously then?
Ghazkuul wrote: If you think its ok for people to suffer debilitating injuries because equality is that important to you, then you are in fact a SJW.
They knew the risks when they took the job. Going for combat duty means you should be prepared for injury. Is that not obvious?
trexmeyer wrote: @Ghaz...you do realize you are arguing with a 17 y/o girl with minimal real world experience and NO military experience, right?
Believe it or not, what someone says is more important than who says it.
But sorry for not belonging to the US soldier circlejerk clique. If I find a male soldier friend who says the exact same things I do, will you take it more seriously then?
You have nothing to say that is based in the real world. Sorry.
CptJake wrote: Actually, the study did show higher injury rates for females, even those who scored high on the basic physical tests. It also showed on average they had less endurance then the males when performing many of the same tasks.
One issue is, even the females that meet whatever standard you set, be it a 60, a 70 or whatever, are gonna get hurt more often and worse than their male counterparts over time.
That is not something they could help. You gave them a test and they passed it. The increased rate of injury is unfortunate, but I doubt it is as disastrous in practice as people are saying.
Read my edited/expanded post. The increased injury rate is a VERY bad thing.
Read my edited/expanded post. The increased injury rate is a VERY bad thing.
Noted. The infantry is not for everyone, by far. My point stands that there are women around who can and who will perform up to par even in infantry roles. If they want to, and are able to, should they not be allowed to?
Same goes for marines and just about everything.
The increased injury rate is a thing, but it was their choice to take that risk, and they knew it. You value highly your freedom of choice, no?
trexmeyer wrote: You have nothing to say that is based in the real world. Sorry.
Ad hominem. You will find more results in trying to argue against my points than trying to argue against me.
And for the record, I am married to a female officer who is currently a brigade commander at Bragg and a war college graduate. Look up selection rates for O6, senior service college, and brigade command to understand what that means.
I just may have a bit of insight into this that some folks do not.
Read my edited/expanded post. The increased injury rate is a VERY bad thing.
Noted. The infantry is not for everyone, by far. My point stands that there are women around who can and who will perform up to par even in infantry roles. If they want to, and are able to, should they not be allowed to?
Same goes for marines and just about everything.
The increased injury rate is a thing, but it was their choice to take that risk, and they knew it. You pride yourself highly on freedom of choice, no?
Not when the increased risk hurts unit readiness and budgets, and takes away the one advantage that was the main reason to start the whole deal (increased eligibility of females for senior leadership positions).
CptJake wrote: Not when the increased risk hurts unit readiness and budgets, and takes away the one advantage that was the main reason to start the whole deal (increased eligibility of females for senior leadership positions).
If your motivation to keep women out of combat roles is to make it easier for them to reach officer positions, I can see that your motivations are fairly placed.
However, I insist that it's the individual's choice here. If a woman doesn't want that and says she wants to go boots on the ground mode, and that she can pass all required tests satisfactorily, what will you tell her?
trexmeyer wrote: @Ghaz...you do realize you are arguing with a 17 y/o girl with minimal real world experience and NO military experience, right?
Is that important? She's making some valid points, trying to use an ad hominem attack to ignore her argument is a pretty poor way to have a debate. In any case, military experience should not be a prerequisite for having a discussion on a site about plastic models on the possible inclusion of women in an infantry role. If they are held to the same standard as men, then surely they are equally as likely to be able to drag you out whilst under fire, no?
As for the increased injury rate, when you sign up for the military, you know there is a risk of death in any frontline role. If you know the consequences, on your head be it.
CptJake wrote: Not when the increased risk hurts unit readiness and budgets, and takes away the one advantage that was the main reason to start the whole deal (increased eligibility of females for senior leadership positions).
If your motivation to keep women out of combat roles is to make it easier for them to reach officer positions, I can see that your motivations are fairly placed.
However, I insist that it's the individual's choice here. If a woman doesn't want that and says she wants to go boots on the ground mode, and that she can pass all required tests satisfactorily, what will you tell her?
Personally? I tell her NO. It is an easy choice
Lets look at it from a slightly different perspective. The various services run various schools. Lets use Ranger School as our example. Or we could use the infantry officer course the Marines run. Both have allowed females to attempt the course. Zero have passed the Marine course and about 10% of those who made it into Ranger school made it through. So in one case you have a population that has a 0% pass rate and in the other a 10% pass rate. The male population that gets into those schools has a significantly higher pass rate (about 65% for Ranger school). The slots for these schools are limited (they can only train so many folks per cycle and run so many cycles per year) and each slot costs $$$. So there is the opportunity cost (putting in someone not likely to pass takes away the opportunity for someone that did have a much better chance of passing) and an economical cost. To exacerbate this the population that is least likely to pass is also the most likely to get hurt, and when hurt, they get hurt worse, which also has a cost ($$$ and as if not more importantly the fantastic folks that try and get hurt badly have their careers ended).
Individual choice has nothing to do with this. No one, NO ONE, has the 'right' to even join the military let alone the 'right' to pick MOS/branch. Each service has a manpower cap and very specific numbers of slots to fill in each MOS/branch. Some individuals may get lucky and be offered the MOS/branch of their choice, but it is NOT a guarantee nor should it be.
Your Freedom of Choice canard is just that. Freedom of choice does not allow you to force tax payers to carry a heavier burden.
trexmeyer wrote: @Ghaz...you do realize you are arguing with a 17 y/o girl with minimal real world experience and NO military experience, right?
Is that important? She's making some valid points, trying to use an ad hominem attack to ignore her argument is a pretty poor way to have a debate. In any case, military experience should not be a prerequisite for having a discussion on a site about plastic models on the possible inclusion of women in an infantry role. If they are held to the same standard as men, then surely they are equally as likely to be able to drag you out whilst under fire, no?
As for the increased injury rate, when you sign up for the military, you know there is a risk of death in any frontline role. If you know the consequences, on your head be it.
They get injured 6 times the normal rate NOT IN COMBAT. So in a place where nobody is trying to harm them, with safety procedures and so on they get 6 times the normal injury rate. Imagine how much that climbs when deployed in combat in a place with lots more "harmful things". Injury costs money. Think about how many people are involved when someone is injured and the supplies + time that uses. In combat this means you might have to risk your own life to save someone who not suited for the environment they are in. This means that the people who are more capable now have to compensate for that loss in help.
It's really easy to say "same test" and wave it away, but the real problems come after the test too. Lets be real here, looking at the statistics they can't even handle the training for combat without a lot of issues. How well is that going to translate to the real thing?
Why should an organisation whose goal it is to wage war (and more) pump disproportionate amounts of money into a small group so they can attempt to do something they are obviously not suited for? The only real reason is as Ghaz says... for the feelings.
It's nothing to do with "personal choice", it's nothing to do with "same test same results" it should be about efficiency. Pumping money into a handicapped minority so they can waste resources, endanger others and underperform is not efficient at all I think.
So to recap, the tests, and the marines in this thread tell us this is a bad idea. Others say everyone needs a chance to prove themselves- but is not being evaluated for combat readiness that chance?
Do we need to lose units of mixed infantry in similar situations in order to agree that this is not the best use of our female soldiers?
You could use a sample size that creates results that are more accurate. Statistics are funny that way.
You could repeat the test with a male/female ratio that is closer to what you would actually expect to see in combat. Considering that 7% of the Marine Corps is women it seems weird that they tested a 50/50 mix. A test putting a 200 men unit vs a 186 men / 14 women unit may paint a more realistic picture.
You could do the same test with the other branches to see if it the test results are a marine thing or if it is an infantry thing.
At a minimum you do the test again. An experiment that can't be reproduced, or hasn't been attempted to be reproduced, is a useless experiment.
d-usa wrote: You could use a sample size that creates results that are more accurate. Statistics are funny that way.
You could repeat the test with a male/female ratio that is closer to what you would actually expect to see in combat. Considering that 7% of the Marine Corps is women it seems weird that they tested a 50/50 mix. A test putting a 200 men unit vs a 186 men / 14 women unit may paint a more realistic picture.
You could do the same test with the other branches to see if it the test results are a marine thing or if it is an infantry thing.
At a minimum you do the test again. An experiment that can't be reproduced, or hasn't been attempted to be reproduced, is a useless experiment.
well let me give you the results of that test now.
All activities such as Rucks and movement under fire drills where everyone has to participate, the mixed unit will do worse. but the scores will narrow markedly because theres fewer woman to slow the unit down
So in the end, adding woman degrades units combat efficiency. The more you add the weaker the unit. So .....what good does that do for your statistics? Ohh and injury rates will stay the same
They didn't just test a 50-50 mix. They varied the ratio of females in the squads/platoons to give more realistic ratios (2 or so per squad) along with higher ratios.
CptJake wrote: They didn't just test a 50-50 mix. They varied the ratio of females in the squads/platoons to give more realistic ratios (2 or so per squad) along with higher ratios.
And stats like this:
Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males
Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males
Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males
CptJake wrote: They didn't just test a 50-50 mix. They varied the ratio of females in the squads/platoons to give more realistic ratios (2 or so per squad) along with higher ratios.
That's what I was asking earlier in the thread and I never got a response to that. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the actual papers (wouldn't let me at work).
CptJake wrote: They didn't just test a 50-50 mix. They varied the ratio of females in the squads/platoons to give more realistic ratios (2 or so per squad) along with higher ratios.
So they did this to get a picture of what the situation would be now, plus had some heavier mixes to simulate larger numbers of women in the Corps?
Well if the injury rate for female soldiers is indeed higher, and their overall performance lower than the average male marine, I see no reason why to bother with female Marines in combat roles. If such facts are true it indicates that recruiting female marines for combat rules is a waste of resources that could be put to other uses for maximum efficiency to be achieved.
It doesn't matter if a woman can indeed pass the tests, if statistics show she's more liable to be a greater drain on resources, then simply don't let her join. The military is only about equality up until the point that it begins to compromise their effectiveness in both peacetime and war.
Wyzilla wrote: Well if the injury rate for female soldiers is indeed higher, and their overall performance lower than the average male marine, I see no reason why to bother with female Marines in combat roles. If such facts are true it indicates that recruiting female marines for combat rules is a waste of resources that could be put to other uses for maximum efficiency to be achieved.
It doesn't matter if a woman can indeed pass the tests, if statistics show she's more liable to be a greater drain on resources, then simply don't let her join. The military is only about equality up until the point that it begins to compromise their effectiveness in both peacetime and war.
That is why we have excellent mixed gender combat SUPPORT units. And even in those units we try to minimize the exposure of females to line combat. For instance my Battalion would routinely deploy and break into small 4-8 man teams that would join Infantry units throughout the AO. These teams would be only males, while the females would integrate into the OCE's or the OCAC and would stay behind at one of the larger installations. This allowed for the best possible use of available resources.
d-usa wrote: You could use a sample size that creates results that are more accurate. Statistics are funny that way.
You could repeat the test with a male/female ratio that is closer to what you would actually expect to see in combat. Considering that 7% of the Marine Corps is women it seems weird that they tested a 50/50 mix. A test putting a 200 men unit vs a 186 men / 14 women unit may paint a more realistic picture.
You could do the same test with the other branches to see if it the test results are a marine thing or if it is an infantry thing.
At a minimum you do the test again. An experiment that can't be reproduced, or hasn't been attempted to be reproduced, is a useless experiment.
And even then, you're not controlling for capability, and hence not properly isolating gender as a factor.
To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.
To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.
To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.
Imagine that.
Yeah go figure, the people who are actually affected by this decision think its terrible and don't want it. But when has someones life mattered in the face of Social justice for all.
To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.
Imagine that.
Yeah go figure, the people who are actually affected by this decision think its terrible and don't want it. But when has someones life mattered in the face of Social justice for all.
Unfortunately, it looks like we're probably going to find out.
Interestingly, the women performed notably better on the physical fitness test. If that's repeatable, then there should be a way to leverage that for female servicewomen. I'm not sure how, exactly, but I'm sure one of you can fill in that blank spot.
My initial thought is is say, well, the standards should reflect what the job actually entails, and it doesn't matter if the results aren't gender balanced, as long as the opportunities are. That's the best way to do it.
But maybe that's not the best way to do it; maybe we should leverage the (median) biological difference between men and women in a useful way. Women use less oxygen and work better in groups; so perhaps there should be a service bias for roles where that is useful, like submariners, whereas it would seem from this that men are more accurate in frontline combat roles.
Ouze wrote: Interestingly, the women performed notably better on the physical fitness test. If that's repeatable, then there should be a way to leverage that for female servicewomen. I'm not sure how, exactly, but I'm sure one of you can fill in that blank spot.
My initial thought is is say, well, the standards should reflect what the job actually entails, and it doesn't matter if the results aren't gender balanced, as long as the opportunities are. That's the best way to do it.
But maybe that's not the best way to do it; maybe we should leverage the (median) biological difference between men and women in a useful way. Women use less oxygen and work better in groups; so perhaps there should be a service bias for roles where that is useful, like submariners, whereas it would seem from this that men are more accurate in frontline combat roles.
To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.
Imagine that.
Yeah go figure, the people who are actually affected by this decision think its terrible and don't want it. But when has someones life mattered in the face of Social justice for all.
Unfortunately, it looks like we're probably going to find out.
I don't know its kind of a weird situation right now. Because you have the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is a career politician and wouldn't know his butt from a battleship. And he is the one who is saying he is going to force the Marines to accept females into combat arms. But on the other hand you have General Dunford USMC who was our commandant before Obama took him as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and that position is the HIGHEST military position in the US and is the direct adviser to the president in all military matters.
So it is going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
*SIDE NOTE: if you read the article I posted it answers a lot of the questions asked in here about the qualifications of the females who participated in this study. Specifically they were trained for 5 months with their male colleagues BEFORE undergoing the tests. Furthermore these females actually had higher PFT scores then their male colleagues (these were done on the female scale though)
What's interesting isn't the results of the study (which are pretty much common sense given confirmation), but that the results of the study were published. DOD civilian leadership has made it clear that everything's opening to females unless an exemption's granted, and we've known how pretty much everybody but the Marines is going to handle that. The Army has apparently realized the futility of struggle, the Air Force hardly cares, the Navy's in much the same boat (and the only contentious billets would be Naval Special Warfare, which has said, "Sure, bring 'em on," knowing full well they're not going to make BUD/S easier and thus not have to worry about integration, though we may be seeing some female SWCCs in the future).
But the Marines have been the big question mark. They've yet to get a female through IOC; they've had to postpone the "everybody does 3 pull-ups, regardless of sex" decree for like three years running now to avoid having to separate over 50% of female Marines, who continue to not be able to hit that standard. Institutional thinking appears to have tilted pretty hard into the "women can't hack it," camp, and this study seems like it might be laying the groundwork for a fight with SECNAV over an exemption, if not for standard infantry slots, then at least for MARSOC and FORECON stuff.
An injury rate six times higher is quite a significant issue here (possibly the only one). If it's from the weight of the gear though (as the report seems to make out to be the case), it might be possible to design a different form of rucksack, or straps that adjust/support differently for female troops. Women are physiologically different after all, and different gear may help with that. If they are having difficulty with the weight of the guns, then that shows that some combat weapons are designed with a man in mind, and specialists should be consulted to see if a lighter weapon could be designed that would be equally effective but with a weight saving. Such a weight saving might also make it so male soldiers can carry more in the way of supplies.
I would also be interested to see the effects of an all female unit in comparison. If the gender is the main issue that is somehow affecting rifle accuracy for example, creating an all-female unit should easily rectify that issue (because the only way gender could affect that is by distraction).
This is interesting data, but so far, all it shows is that further testing and possibly different equipment design/procurement is necessary. Certainly, this says nothing definitive one way or another. The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States, and so the project to find a way to safely make that possible should continue for the present.
Seaward wrote: What's interesting isn't the results of the study (which are pretty much common sense given confirmation), but that the results of the study were published. DOD civilian leadership has made it clear that everything's opening to females unless an exemption's granted, and we've known how pretty much everybody but the Marines is going to handle that. The Army has apparently realized the futility of struggle, the Air Force hardly cares, the Navy's in much the same boat (and the only contentious billets would be Naval Special Warfare, which has said, "Sure, bring 'em on," knowing full well they're not going to make BUD/S easier and thus not have to worry about integration, though we may be seeing some female SWCCs in the future).
But the Marines have been the big question mark. They've yet to get a female through IOC; they've had to postpone the "everybody does 3 pull-ups, regardless of sex" decree for like three years running now to avoid having to separate over 50% of female Marines, who continue to not be able to hit that standard. Institutional thinking appears to have tilted pretty hard into the "women can't hack it," camp, and this study seems like it might be laying the groundwork for a fight with SECNAV over an exemption, if not for standard infantry slots, then at least for MARSOC and FORECON stuff.
Actually the 3 pullup minimum was first tried in 2011 but it was found only a small percentage of Females could do it without training (in the order of 1-5%). Then they changed it to 2012-13-14-15 and now 16 because not enough of them can do it, STILL.
Males do 3 for minimum and 20 for maximum with each pullup counting for 5 points for your final PFT score.
Females do 3 for minimum and 8 for maximum with the first 3 pullups counting for 75 points and each additional pullup adding 5 more points.
It is rather important to note that as you and I both pointed out "Civilian DoD". The Secretary of the Navy is a Career politician who knows as much about the Military as your average college graduate. "Only idiots who couldn't get into college join the military" so yeah his opinion means about as much as a fart in a space suit.
Ketara wrote: An injury rate six times higher is quite a significant issue here (possibly the only one). If it's from the weight of the gear though (as the report seems to make out to be the case), it might be possible to design a different form of rucksack, or straps that adjust/support differently for female troops. Women are physiologically different after all, and different gear may help with that. If they are having difficulty with the weight of the guns, then that shows that some combat weapons are designed with a man in mind, and specialists should be consulted to see if a lighter weapon could be designed that would be equally effective but with a weight saving. Such a weight saving might also make it so male soldiers can carry more in the way of supplies.
I would also be interested to see the effects of an all female unit in comparison. If the gender is the main issue that is somehow affecting rifle accuracy for example, creating an all-female unit should easily rectify that issue (because the only way gender could affect that is by distraction).
This is interesting data, but so far, all it shows is that further testing and possibly different equipment design/procurement is necessary. Certainly, this says nothing definitive one way or another. The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States, and so the project to find a way to safely make that possible should continue for the present.
It is, indeed, possible that they could redesign both weapons and common load bearing kit to be easier for females to manage.
At what point do we start asking what we're gaining from all of this time, effort, and money aside from fulfilling a political goal, though? We're not increasing efficiency, we're not reducing cost, we're not extending capability.
Ketara wrote: An injury rate six times higher is quite a significant issue here (possibly the only one). If it's from the weight of the gear though (as the report seems to make out to be the case), it might be possible to design a different form of rucksack, or straps that adjust/support differently for female troops. Women are physiologically different after all, and different gear may help with that. If they are having difficulty with the weight of the guns, then that shows that some combat weapons are designed with a man in mind, and specialists should be consulted to see if a lighter weapon could be designed that would be equally effective but with a weight saving. Such a weight saving might also make it so male soldiers can carry more in the way of supplies.
I would also be interested to see the effects of an all female unit in comparison. If the gender is the main issue that is somehow affecting rifle accuracy for example, creating an all-female unit should easily rectify that issue (because the only way gender could affect that is by distraction).
This is interesting data, but so far, all it shows is that further testing and possibly different equipment design/procurement is necessary. Certainly, this says nothing definitive one way or another. The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States, and so the project to find a way to safely make that possible should continue for the present.
It is, indeed, possible that they could redesign both weapons and common load bearing kit to be easier for females to manage.
At what point do we start asking what we're gaining from all of this time, effort, and money aside from fulfilling a political goal, though? We're not increasing efficiency, we're not reducing cost, we're not extending capability.
You're gaining the ability to double your recruiting pool for the marines. By coming up with a second set of equipment, whilst you do complicate the supply chain slightly, that's only the case if you insist that male-specific equipment be produced. If something unisex can be produced, you may find that the capabilities of the rest of your armed forces are enhanced as well (with the ability for the men to carry extra additional rations/tech/etc).
In short, this is about expanding the pool of available manpower resources the USA can draw on in a major war significantly. What's learned here can also be applied to women in other combat arms than the Marines.
Ghazkuul wrote: I don't know its kind of a weird situation right now. Because you have the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is a career politician and wouldn't know his butt from a battleship.
It is rather important to note that as you and I both pointed out "Civilian DoD". The Secretary of the Navy is a Career politician who knows as much about the Military as your average college graduate. "Only idiots who couldn't get into college join the military" so yeah his opinion means about as much as a fart in a space suit.
Bro? Are you so opposed to the idea of facts and information you can't even be bothered to check the basics on claims you make? I seriously didn't know much about the guy so I looked him up:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio_ldr.asp?bioid=505 wrote:Secretary Mabus is a native of Ackerman, Mississippi, and received a Bachelor's Degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Mississippi, a Master's Degree from Johns Hopkins University, and a Law Degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. After Johns Hopkins, Mabus served in the Navy as an officer aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock.
Now we'll put aside the problems with your apparent implication one can't know anything about the military without having been in it. He was in the military. Though I suppose since this verifiable thing that can checked it just counts as "Useless Information" or something. Or are we going to be moving the goal posts on the type or length of millitary service one must have that he might "Know his butt from a battleship".
Ketara wrote: The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States.
How? Are the Marines (or any of the services) failing to meet recruiting goals? Should they also lower education, criminal record, and physical standards so they have an even larger pool to recruit from?
But of course the reality is they DO recruit females. And not all that many join up.
Ghazkuul wrote: I don't know its kind of a weird situation right now. Because you have the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is a career politician and wouldn't know his butt from a battleship.
It is rather important to note that as you and I both pointed out "Civilian DoD". The Secretary of the Navy is a Career politician who knows as much about the Military as your average college graduate. "Only idiots who couldn't get into college join the military" so yeah his opinion means about as much as a fart in a space suit.
Bro? Are you so opposed to the idea of facts and information you can't even be bothered to check the basics on claims you make? I seriously didn't know much about the guy so I looked him up:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio_ldr.asp?bioid=505 wrote:Secretary Mabus is a native of Ackerman, Mississippi, and received a Bachelor's Degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Mississippi, a Master's Degree from Johns Hopkins University, and a Law Degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. After Johns Hopkins, Mabus served in the Navy as an officer aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock.
Now we'll put aside the problems with your apparent implication one can't know anything about the military without having been in it. He was in the military. Though I suppose since this verifiable thing that can checked it just counts as "Useless Information" or something. Or are we going to be moving the goal posts on the type or length of millitary service one must have that he might "Know his butt from a battleship".
He also served two years in the Navy as a surface warfare officer from 1970 to 1972 aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock (CLG-4),[1
im sorry i over looked his 2 years in the navy aboard a Ship. And I will stick to what I said about him not knowing his butt from a battleship. 2 years in the military equates to about 1 year of training and maybe if he was insanely lucky, 1 float.
Beyond that, YES you do need to be in the military to understand it. Thats like me making decisions on how to perform brain surgery because I was in EMS for 2 years. You didn't serve I understand that, but put it in perspective. He is a career politician who joined the navy for his political career and got out on the shortest contract possible. (Hell I had to look it up because I didn't think 2 year officer programs existed).
But even then, he was in the Navy as a Surface Warfare officer. His expertise on infantry is limited to what his advisers are telling him, and since the USMC is kind of an expert in Infantry, he is ignoring their recommendations to push for Social justice. IF you look into his career and specifically his tenure as SecNav you will notice that he is a SJW.
Ghazkuul wrote: I don't know its kind of a weird situation right now. Because you have the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is a career politician and wouldn't know his butt from a battleship.
It is rather important to note that as you and I both pointed out "Civilian DoD". The Secretary of the Navy is a Career politician who knows as much about the Military as your average college graduate. "Only idiots who couldn't get into college join the military" so yeah his opinion means about as much as a fart in a space suit.
Bro? Are you so opposed to the idea of facts and information you can't even be bothered to check the basics on claims you make? I seriously didn't know much about the guy so I looked him up:p
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio_ldr.asp?bioid=505 wrote:Secretary Mabus is a native of Ackerman, Mississippi, and received a Bachelor's Degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Mississippi, a Master's Degree from Johns Hopkins University, and a Law Degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. After Johns Hopkins, Mabus served in the Navy as an officer aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock.
Now we'll put aside the problems with your apparent implication one can't know anything about the military without having been in it. He was in the military. Though I suppose since this verifiable thing that can checked it just counts as "Useless Information" or something. Or are we going to be moving the goal posts on the type or length of millitary service one must have that he might "Know his butt from a battleship".
He also served two years in the Navy as a surface warfare officer from 1970 to 1972 aboard the cruiser USS Little Rock (CLG-4),[1
im sorry i over looked his 2 years in the navy aboard a Ship. And I will stick to what I said about him not knowing his butt from a battleship. 2 years in the military equates to about 1 year of training and maybe if he was insanely lucky, 1 float.
Beyond that, YES you do need to be in the military to understand it. Thats like me making decisions on how to perform brain surgery because I was in EMS for 2 years. You didn't serve I understand that, but put it in perspective. He is a career politician who joined the navy for his political career and got out on the shortest contract possible. (Hell I had to look it up because I didn't think 2 year officer programs existed).
But even then, he was in the Navy as a Surface Warfare officer. His expertise on infantry is limited to what his advisers are telling him, and since the USMC is kind of an expert in Infantry, he is ignoring their recommendations to push for Social justice. IF you look into his career and specifically his tenure as SecNav you will notice that he is a SJW.
From the sounds of things, he's going to get people killed with his PC push to get women into infantry slots.
You're gaining the ability to double your recruiting pool for the marines. By coming up with a second set of equipment, whilst you do complicate the supply chain slightly, that's only the case if you insist that male-specific equipment be produced. If something unisex can be produced, you may find that the capabilities of the rest of your armed forces are enhanced as well (with the ability for the men to carry extra additional rations/tech/etc).
In short, this is about expanding the pool of available manpower resources the USA can draw on in a major war significantly. What's learned here can also be applied to women in other combat arms than the Marines.
Redesigning and procuring new equipment isn't as easy as you make it out to be, and pushing women into infantry roles isn't really solving a problem. Like Jake said, the Marines aren't struggling to reach their recruiting goals.
As for the effect on the unit, having a few members with inferior physical capability is dangerous. What happens when your female Marine, with her redesigned weapon and gear, sees a fellow Marine go down next to her and she needs to carry him out of the line of fire? In your fantasy you've got guys carrying extra gear for the gals, so her pulling the casualty is even less likely.
Re: Mabus he's not an infantry guy. Expecting a sailor to know about the infantry is equivalent to that thing they do in movies where a character may be a botanist, but he has no problem jumping into quantum physics. Refer to this factual diagram:
I keep seeing that women are 6 times more likely to be injured than men in an infantry role. How many people end up having to care for the injured one, say in a field deployment situation and what would be the effect on the mission?
Relapse wrote: I keep seeing that women are 6 times more likely to be injured than men in an infantry role. How many people end up having to care for the injured one, say in a field deployment situation and what would be the effect on the mission?
depends on the injury, but in a combat situation it takes between 1-4 Marines to CASEVAC one wounded Marine. 1 if the wound is light or not life threatening. 2 if the situation is dire and bodies can't be spared and 4 if he is critical and NEEDS to be Evacuated Immediately.
But it isn't ever just those 1-4 Marines who are off the line. You then have 1-2 fireteams that are weakened by the absence of Marines, you have a squad that has to move the casualties back to the rear and post security for them while the doc works on them.
In the case of these specific types of injuries though your looking at injured/broken feet, ankles legs and hips predominantly. So what your going to do is have that specific female evac'd back to the base and sent home early from deployment. It wouldn't be too mission degrading in the short term but in the long term losing 1-10 bodies due to preventable injures seriously reduces your combat efficiency. And the worst part is that sometimes you need every trigger puller you can get your hands on. Battle of Marjah for example.
Ketara wrote: The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States.
How? Are the Marines (or any of the services) failing to meet recruiting goals? Should they also lower education, criminal record, and physical standards so they have an even larger pool to recruit from?
But of course the reality is they DO recruit females. And not all that many join up.
You think too small and current term. Yes, you are correct that as things stand there is no issue with the recruitment pool. By that logic though, provisions should never be made for advancing technological designs or streamlining any sort of current procedures either, as both function well enough for current requirements.
In reality, the Government needs to be prepared for a situation of all-out war should it ever become necessary, and having a larger recruiting base in such a scenario would greatly help in that sort of scenario. What's more, by making these considerations and adjustments now, it is possible that females in current roles can benefit from the lessons learned, both in squad deployment and future weapon design, which in turn enhances the future capability of the US armed forces, even if the total war scenario is never required.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Redesigning and procuring new equipment isn't as easy as you make it out to be,
A new backpack with adjusted straps would not be a major technological advance, or particularly hard to source manufacture for. If that's a concern, you have bigger issues. Coming up with a new standard infantry weapon will also most likely occur within the next ten to thirty years regardless, so it would not be overly onerous to add a weight limitation to the specifications when they are placed out to tender, and prototypes trialled. When the benefit is a unisex weapon that is easier for everyone to handle, it's a potential requirement worth considering.
Also, one of my research specialties is military procurement from and research co-operation between private industry by governments in a historical context, so I daresay I know more about the potential complications than anyone who hasn't been, or isn't engaged in a job role relating to it.
and pushing women into infantry roles isn't really solving a problem.
Who is pushing? The adaptation of the armed forces to a modern context and future shifts is a subject worthy of consideration. We don't march in columns with muskets anymore, and we don't insist all tanks are attached piecemeal to infantry units. If you want to assume that future warfare will not include women in infantry roles to any substantial degree, when all it could take is some minor force reorganisation, some form of ankle brace, a slight weapon spec adjustment, and a new backpack, feel free. You might be right. The biological difficulties may be too much to overcome. But you also may well turn out to be wrong.
As for the effect on the unit, having a few members with inferior physical capability is dangerous. What happens when your female Marine, with her redesigned weapon and gear, sees a fellow Marine go down next to her and she needs to carry him out of the line of fire? In your fantasy you've got guys carrying extra gear for the gals, so her pulling the casualty is even less likely.
'Fantasy'.
The only thing fantastical here is the apparent resistance to consideration of future force organisation and recruitment for optimum efficiency.
Firstly, your scenario assumes it's not a woman only unit, in which case 'she' could be pulling a 'she' who is lighter, second, the extra equipment was simply a vague consideration as to how lightening a gun could make an infantryman capable of carrying more. So he'd weigh no more than he currently does with a heavier gun, and possibly less.. Thirdly, you're assuming that she'll feel the need to carry him AND all of his equipment, when if a soldier is wounded, the last thing she'll be worrying about is making sure to carry his rations with them too.
Finally, you're also ignoring the benefits that research in this direction could have towards integrating women into less rigorous units than the Marines. I'm not advocating that it be done, chop chop. I'm advocating that further tests be undertaken and consideration for design be made for the next batch of procurement. The way that you've clearly jumped into opposing me without actually reading what I've said speaks volumes about your apparent neutrality on this.
Ketara wrote: The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States.
How? Are the Marines (or any of the services) failing to meet recruiting goals? Should they also lower education, criminal record, and physical standards so they have an even larger pool to recruit from?
But of course the reality is they DO recruit females. And not all that many join up.
You think too small and current term. Yes, you are correct that as things stand there is no issue with the recruitment pool. By that logic though, provisions should never be made for advancing technological designs or streamlining any sort of current procedures either, as both function well enough for current requirements.
In reality, the Government needs to be prepared for a situation of all-out war should it ever become necessary, and having a larger recruiting base in such a scenario would greatly help in that sort of scenario. What's more, by making these considerations and adjustments now, it is possible that females in current roles can benefit from the lessons learned, both in squad deployment and future weapon design, which in turn enhances the future capability of the US armed forces, even if the total war scenario is never required.
You seem to have missed the point that the '50% of the population' you are worried about IS being recruited. By all the services. And there are currently a ton of specialties/jobs they are eligible for. So that 'larger recruiting base' is already 'larger' in that females can and do enlist and/or enter via the various commissioning sources. Even in the vastly unlikely 'all-out war' scenario, you can't get a 'larger recruiting base' by opening recruiting to females, because it is ALREADY open to females. And in that unlikely scenario, the logistics/support (to include combat support and combat service support such as military police, intel, signal, and everything else would need to grow at a larger ratio than just infantry, and those are all currently open to everyone eligible to enlist.
What part of that is hard to understand or accept? It isn't opinion or theoretical, females ARE being recruited.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.
Men are better at fighting in combat than women on average. That's where I think the problem lies. The test did say that the top 10th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 50th percentile of men, in some things. That means that there are probably some women (a small percentage) who are actually better soldiers than men in the bottom 50th percentile.
I appreciate that most women just aren't physically up to the task, but then a good portion of men also aren't physically up to the task. The people who are should be judged on their own merits, not their gender.
The current weapon in use now weighs less than 7 pounds I believe.
Since very few women make the cut in your fantasy odds are it will be a man she will be pulling out. And I had to pull guys out. I was a 300 score guy on the PFT every time. And it still wasn't easy.
And when I was in marines carried all there equipment/rations on them most of time. And you rarely have time to cherry pick what the injured soldier needs or doesn't need before you decide to pull him out.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.
Men are better at fighting in combat than women on average. That's where I think the problem lies. The test did say that the top 10th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 50th percentile of men, in some things. That means that there are probably some women (a small percentage) who are actually better soldiers than men in the bottom 50th percentile.
I appreciate that most women just aren't physically up to the task, but then a good portion of men also aren't physically up to the task. The people who are should be judged on their own merits, not their gender.
But that top 10% was also a lot more injury prone...
There comes a point where between losing training slots to folks a lot less likely to pass and having a portion of your force more likely to be more significantly injured (effecting unit readiness/deployability) that it just does't make sense to incur the additional cost in order to be 'fair'. Washing out 9 females to get the one who can pass took training slots away from 9 guys, of who 6-7 generally pass. Over time, that one female is a lot more likely to be hurt/invalided out than the 6-7 guys who make it through. And there is no real benefit to the force except some very misguided concept of 'fair'.
Just think how much better the Patriots could have done last year if they had opened up their recruiting to females, and decided a certain percentage of the slots on their roster should be filled by females.
You seem to have missed the point that the '50% of the population' you are worried about IS being recruited. By all the services. And there are currently a ton of specialties/jobs they are eligible for. So that 'larger recruiting base' is already 'larger' in that females can and do enlist and/or enter via the various commissioning sources.
If you'd read to the end and grasp the context, you'd understand that the 'larger recruiting pool' comment refers to the marine infantry specifically, for whom that 50% is not being utilised at all.
You know, considering several of the following comments I made were all about how taking gender into account when designing equipment could potentially increase efficiency for 'females in current roles' or 'less rigorous units than the Marines', I would have thought you'd have grasped that I do actually, in fact, know that women do actually work in other jobs in the US military. But just in case that passed you by (as the quoted comment would heavily appear to indicate), yes, I am aware of that fact.
CptJake wrote: But that top 10% was also a lot more injury prone...
Sorry, I must have missed that part. I see that females were more prone to injury, again on average, but that could be caused by lower percentiles dragging the average down. How do you deduce that a woman in the top 10th percentile is more injury prone than a man in the bottom 50th? VO2 max was indicated as important component in some injuries, and that is an area where the best women overlapped with men.
I don't think filtering candidates out needs to be expensive or time consuming. In the UK we have weight restrictions for infantry, over 60kg (132lbs), coupled with a basic fitness test like 20 chin ups in 3 mins, you would be able to filter out nearly all female candidates, without gender being an issue.
This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides. Marines who have extensive combat experience who know first hand what it would take for someone to be able to hack it in an extended real life situation who say putting a woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk than the social experiment is worth.
On the other hand we have those who believe SOME women could do just as well as a man in the field, and with redesign of equipment should be shoulder to shoulder with the men.
I don't know if anyone mentioned the Israelis in this, but I'm sure there is first hand knowledge among some of the posters here about how the women are worked into their combat forces. This could be enlightening if someone could share that again.
This is happening due to political pressure. The Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't calling for this themselves; they're being told to do it. It's certainly pushing.
And that's the only way it could happen, to be fair. Female integration into Navy fighter squadrons was pushed, and went disastrously for the first wave, but it did eventually get better. Could we get by fine without female Hornet/Rhino drivers now? Absolutely. Does it detract from readiness/efficiency/etc? No, not appreciably.
But that's where the difference is, I think. Readiness/efficiency will be compromised by this push, if this study is any guide. We could theoretically throw a bunch of time and money at redesigning everything to try and get women up to the same level, but we don't know for sure that would even work, so I have to circle back around to, "Is this juice worth the squeeze?" Despite the 'hypothetical future conventional all-out war' scenario where we're recruiting the entire population of the US into the armed services, I really don't think it is. The only benefits are political.
Relapse wrote: This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides.
You forgot the third one. People oversimplifying and miscategorising a discussion to try and appear smart.
It seems odd that a mod should have to be reminded of rule #1, but I'll take this moment
Get your kicks where you can, eh?
and do it.
I believe I was perfectly polite? If the slightly sarky misrepresentation of a discussion between others had an alternative motivation that somehow went over my head though, I'd be more than happy to retract my comment if you'd care to explain it to me.
This is happening due to political pressure. The Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't calling for this themselves; they're being told to do it. It's certainly pushing.
The word 'pushing' was used in response to one of my posts, and as such, I assumed it was being used specifically in relation to myself. I wouldn't care to comment on the politicking over in the US administration, by pure virtue of the fact that I'm not privy to the reasoning of senior US military command.
But that's where the difference is, I think. Readiness/efficiency will be compromised by this push, if this study is any guide. We could theoretically throw a bunch of time and money at redesigning everything to try and get women up to the same level, but we don't know for sure that would even work, so I have to circle back around to, "Is this juice worth the squeeze?" Despite the 'hypothetical future conventional all-out war' scenario where we're recruiting the entire population of the US into the armed services, I really don't think it is.
Possibly not. I'm open to the argument that the gains are not worth the hassle to an extent. But I do think (as I keep saying) that I see potential positive material spinoff for women across the services in terms of equipment and suchlike, even if the final results come back as a negative.
Relapse wrote: Who was trying to appear smart? It just seemed as though people on both sides were voicing concerns and solutions.
See, now that's a far more evenhanded description.
CptJake wrote: But that top 10% was also a lot more injury prone...
Sorry, I must have missed that part. I see that females were more prone to injury, again on average, but that could be caused by lower percentiles dragging the average down. How do you deduce that a woman in the top 10th percentile is more injury prone than a man in the bottom 50th? VO2 max was indicated as important component in some injuries, and that is an area where the best women overlapped with men.
I don't think filtering candidates out needs to be expensive or time consuming. In the UK we have weight restrictions for infantry, over 60kg (132lbs), coupled with a basic fitness test like 20 chin ups in 3 mins, you would be able to filter out nearly all female candidates, without gender being an issue.
Females are injured at a higher rate regardless of where in the physical fitness test they fell. Throughout my time in the Corps I knew 1 woman who could have made it into infantry and not gotten hurt. We affectionately referred to her as Grandma because she was 30 where most marines were 18-22. And I asked her once when this nonsense was first kicking off what she thought and even she thought it was a TERRIBLE idea. SO as said before, if the majority of females in the Marines think its a terrible idea it might be....a Terrible idea.
As far as gear? you have no idea how hard it is to acquire anything remotely new in the USMC. You also don't have a clue how hard the USMC does invest its limited resources in coming up with new LBE (Load Bearing Equipment). You can have the best LBE in the world, its still not going to help a 130lb female carry 130lbs of gear with her on a 22 mile patrol.
Going back to the involving females in the military during a total war scenario. That has been done before, it was called WWII. Female Marines took over jobs in logistis, admin, intel and everywhere else to free up male marines to be infantry and other combat MOS's. It worked exceptionally well.
Ghazkuul wrote: SO as said before, if the majority of females in the Marines think its a terrible idea it might be....a Terrible idea.
Please link the survey.
go read the links already posted. As for my personnel experience and those of fellow marines who have posted. we don't have surveys because it was all done orally. If you would like you can go join the USMC and ask them yourself
First hand experience > Fuzzy Warm feelings about equality.
Are we back to this strange argument that only people who've been shot at in a warzone can have any input in this discussion?
For the record, I too would like to see this survey, because I couldn't see anything in the link you posted earlier.
We don't have a survey.
We honestly don't even have the results of this major study either. What we do have is a four page report telling is their interpretation of the results, we never got the actual results themselves.
And honestly, while "here is what I think the results say" does rank higher than "here is what females I talked to think", it is about as useful when it come to making policy decisions.
This is happening due to political pressure. The Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force aren't calling for this themselves; they're being told to do it. It's certainly pushing.
The word 'pushing' was used in response to one of my posts, and as such, I assumed it was being used specifically in relation to myself. I wouldn't care to comment on the politicking over in the US administration, by pure virtue of the fact that I'm not privy to the reasoning of senior US military command.
But that's where the difference is, I think. Readiness/efficiency will be compromised by this push, if this study is any guide. We could theoretically throw a bunch of time and money at redesigning everything to try and get women up to the same level, but we don't know for sure that would even work, so I have to circle back around to, "Is this juice worth the squeeze?" Despite the 'hypothetical future conventional all-out war' scenario where we're recruiting the entire population of the US into the armed services, I really don't think it is.
Possibly not. I'm open to the argument that the gains are not worth the hassle to an extent. But I do think (as I keep saying) that I see potential positive material spinoff for women across the services in terms of equipment and suchlike, even if the final results come back as a negative.
Engineering, producing and supplying an entirely different set of gear for women in the infantry would be a logistical nightmare. You know have twice as much gear to keep track of and you need to simultaneously keep track of which units have women and how many and coordinate it all for resupply. How much does a woman's comabt effectiveness decreases if she's stuck in a unit that doesn't have replacement gear for her because she's the only woman? How much does a male marine's combat effectiveness decrease because he's stuck with female size gear because of a clerical error in logistics? How much time, money and effort is saved and better applied elsewhere by keeping the TO&E unisex instead of gender specific?
Then you have the additional issue of morale and unit cohesion. The top priority for the USMC is creating an effective fighting unit. If only the top few women can pass the same standards that men are held to then are you accepting enough women in infantry slots to have them comprise a high enough percentage of the unit to have effective peer support? All of the male marines are united by shared experience and understanding, the female marines have a different set of problems to overcome and if there's only 1 female in a platoon or company then she has no peer support and it's harder for her to overcome the negatives of being the odd duck in the unit even without any sexist ostracization. There's a tipping point where you will have enough female marines in a unit to make it easier for them to be at their best and for the unit to function more cohesively, I don't know where that tipping point is but it's likely higher than the rate at which female marines can pass male standards for infantry slots.
On top of that you have the fact that deployment decreases physical fitness. Being stuck on an outpost on a ridgeline in the Hindu Kush for weeks/months living off MREs degrades physical conditioning. Not by a tremendous amount but by enough that both the Army and Marines extensively study the effects and how to mitigate them. Even if both genders see an equal amount of decreased conditioning the male marines can start from a higher level of fitness than the female marines. If a female marine barely passes the standard fitness level and then sees her fitness level drop during deployment will that drop be enough to make her less effective and a liability?
Abstract : To examine change in physical fitness and body composition after a military deployment to Afghanistan. Methods: one hundred and ten infantry soldiers were measured before and after a 9-month deployment to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. Measurements included treadmill peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2), lifting strength, medicine ball put, vertical jump, and body composition estimated via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (percent body fat), absolute body fat, fat-free mass, bone mineral content, and bone mineral density. Results: There were significant decreases (P<0.01) in peak VO2 (-4.5%), medicine ball put(-4.9% body mass {-1.9%}, and fat-free mass{-3.5 %}, wheras percent body fat increased from 17.7% to 19.6%.
ABSTRACT
This investigation evaluated the effects of a 13-month deployment to Iraq on body composition and selected fitness measures. Seventy-three combat arms soldiers were measured pre- and postdeployment. Body composition was assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Strength was measured by single repetition maximum (1-RM) lifts on bench press and squat. Power was assessed by a bench throw and squat jump. Aerobic endurance was evaluated with a timed 2-mile run. Exercise and injury history were assessed by questionnaire. Upper and lower body strength improved by 7% and 8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Upper body power increased 9% (p < 0.001) and lean mass increased 3% (p < 0.05). In contrast, aerobic performance declined 13% (p < 0.001) and fat mass increased 9% (p < 0.05). Fewer soldiers participated in aerobic exercise or sports during deployment (p < 0.001). Unit commanders should be aware of potential fitness and body composition changes during deployment and develop physical training programs to enhance fitness following deployment.
The question isn't simply can a woman pass the male standards for becoming a Marine rifleman (rifleperson?). The question is can enough women pass the standard to create supportive peer groups to help ensure their success and can they maintain the required level of fitness on deployment where it is most important? If the best case scenario for opening up combat infantry slots to women in the marines is adding at most a few female marines per company is that enough to warrant making the change? It's not like we're talking about doubling the number of rifleman slots due to the inclusion of women. Given the reality of recruitment and biology you're not going to get that many women choosing the Marines, choosing to be infantry and then making the grade.
First hand experience > Fuzzy Warm feelings about equality.
Historically speaking, first hand experience can often cloud matters. If you look back to major innovations in policy and technology, most military institutions are quite formulaic, and reluctant to adopt anything new. I regularly paw through pre-war reports of British and American Admirals derisively snorting at the idea of submarines being any sort of use. The motorised ambulances. Then planes. 'Telephones? Bah, who needs them! Now deploy those tanks like they were cavalry!' I mean, God, our Armuy ran into WW1 thinking it would be a Boer War re-enactment, strategically speaking, and look how that one turned out! But you know, they had first-hand experience. Right?
Things aren't as bad today (in fact, often you have too much of a reliance on untrialled technology), but it's nowhere near as uncommon as you would hope. First-hand experience of combat gives you nothing more than that: firsthand experience of combat, in a specific setting, in a specific time. It doesn't give you automatic knowledge of the worlds of biology, psychology, technology, or even strategy. Sometimes it does give you valuable insights into those things, but it does the opposite for people just as often.
Because this would be the third time explaining that anecdotes don't equal data.
If you want to argue that there are women who think this is a bad idea, then you are right. And your personal experience and links you keep on posting are good examples.
But if you keep on presenting female Marines as a unified front against integration, then you will need some actual data to back that up. And anecdotes and "people I talked to" don't cut it.
Relapse wrote: This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides.
You forgot the third one. People oversimplifying and miscategorising a discussion to try and appear smart.
Nobody else is taking this personally. Criticize the point, not the individual.
If your point is that we should make lighter weapons so women can serve in combat units then my rebuttal is that the weapon (m4) is light enough as is. Scrawny Israeli chicks carried them every day when I was in and never had any trouble.
The problem lies with the armor and other gear. A fighting load is around 80 lbs. A marching load is 120 lbs +. The backpack weight alone has very little to do with that. If we could use lighter equipment we would. It is a biological fact that women, on average, can't ruck as hard as men. End of story. Arguing against this point is arguing against biological fact. No amount of ergonomics improvement will make 120 lbs doable for someone with 20+% bodyfat on a 120-150 lb frame.
To clarify- women have a place in the military. Women have a place in combat, and can make fantastic pilots, tankers, etc. Women won't make good infantry because of biological limitations. Even if they roided their asses off, the female skeletal frame is not made to support the same activities as the male frame.
d-usa wrote: Are you linking surveys or anecdotes?
Because this would be the third time explaining that anecdotes don't equal data.
If you want to argue that there are women who think this is a bad idea, then you are right. And your personal experience and links you keep on posting are good examples.
But if you keep on presenting female Marines as a unified front against integration, then you will need some actual data to back that up. And anecdotes and "people I talked to" don't cut it.
what is a survey D-USA? its a study that asks questions to individuals, well I am giving you individuals that were asked a question and they answered it. They just didnt have 100-200 others answering with them.
So far all the stories i posted involved female Combat veterans and they all agree that it is a terrible idea.
Engineering, producing and supplying an entirely different set of gear for women in the infantry would be a logistical nightmare.You know have twice as much gear to keep track of and you need to simultaneously keep track of which units have women and how many and coordinate it all for resupply. How much does a woman's comabt effectiveness decreases if she's stuck in a unit that doesn't have replacement gear for her because she's the only woman? How much does a male marine's combat effectiveness decrease because he's stuck with female size gear because of a clerical error in logistics? How much time, money and effort is saved and better applied elsewhere by keeping the TO&E unisex instead of gender specific?
This is all highly contingent on what that gear is. If it's a standard unisex infantry weapon in ten years time, everyone has it. So no addititional difficulties caused. If it's a rucksack with slightly different straps, well, those are easily contracted, manufactured, and lightweight. What's more, I'd be surprised if a variation on a standard rucksack with just a different set of supportive straps couldn't be devised (since we manage to build rocket engines and other far more complex things!). These are minor enough changes, it's not like I'm suggesting kitting them out with special 'Fem' grenades, a three course meal every night, and different sized bullets to everyone else. If the US procurement service can't manage two sets of straps in a supply depot, you really HAVE got bigger problems than this!
Then you have the additional issue of morale and unit cohesion. The top priority for the USMC is creating an effective fighting unit. If only the top few women can pass the same standards that men are held to then are you accepting enough women in infantry slots to have them comprise a high enough percentage of the unit to have effective peer support? All of the male marines are united by shared experience and understanding, the female marines have a different set of problems to overcome and if there's only 1 female in a platoon or company then she has no peer support and it's harder for her to overcome the negatives of being the odd duck in the unit even without any sexist ostracization. There's a tipping point where you will have enough female marines in a unit to make it easier for them to be at their best and for the unit to function more cohesively, I don't know where that tipping point is but it's likely higher than the rate at which female marines can pass male standards for infantry slots.
Hence the mooting of all female marine infantry combat units. But frankly, practically everything you've just said up there could be levelled as reason to keep women out of the military altogether, so I won't repeat that debate here.
On top of that you have the fact that deployment decreases physical fitness. Being stuck on an outpost on a ridgeline in the Hindu Kush for weeks/months living off MREs degrades physical conditioning. Not by a tremendous amount but by enough that both the Army and Marines extensively study the effects and how to mitigate them. Even if both genders see an equal amount of decreased conditioning the male marines can start from a higher level of fitness than the female marines. If a female marine barely passes the standard fitness level and then sees her fitness level drop during deployment will that drop be enough to make her less effective and a liability?
I don't know. So like I said, do more tests and find out.
If your point is that we should make lighter weapons so women can serve in combat units then my rebuttal is that the weapon (m4) is light enough as is. Scrawny Israeli chicks carried them every day when I was in and never had any trouble.
The problem lies with the armor and other gear. A fighting load is around 80 lbs. A marching load is 120 lbs +. The backpack weight alone has very little to do with that. If we could use lighter equipment we would. It is a biological fact that women, on average, can't ruck as hard as men. End of story. Arguing against this point is arguing against biological fact. No amount of ergonomics improvement will make 120 lbs doable for someone with 20+% bodyfat on a 120-150 lb frame.
That's quite possibly the case. The question is to what extent this affects their ability in combat and the field, and if it is unfeasible, what mitigating factors can be introduced that would bring it within acceptable parameters. Simply declaring, 'No, it can't be done, buying a pair of shoes in the army is impossible, women are physically weak, they're too prone to injury' etc is focusing on entirely the wrong thing. We don't know what can be done, and we don't know if having attempted to mitigate the extraneous factors, it will still turn out to be inadvisable (due to the cost factors, or due to biological impossibility). The answer is to sit down, do the trials, apply human ingenuity, and find out.
There's nobody here proudly asserting, 'Women CAN be marines!' Instead, you have people saying, 'We need a spot more data before it's clear one way or the other'. Unfortunately, too many people believe that they already know the answer to the above. Which leads me to conclude that the number of wargamers that are psychics is astonishingly high.
Engineering, producing and supplying an entirely different set of gear for women in the infantry would be a logistical nightmare.You know have twice as much gear to keep track of and you need to simultaneously keep track of which units have women and how many and coordinate it all for resupply. How much does a woman's comabt effectiveness decreases if she's stuck in a unit that doesn't have replacement gear for her because she's the only woman? How much does a male marine's combat effectiveness decrease because he's stuck with female size gear because of a clerical error in logistics? How much time, money and effort is saved and better applied elsewhere by keeping the TO&E unisex instead of gender specific?
This is all highly contingent on what that gear is. If it's a standard unisex infantry weapon in ten years time, everyone has it. So no addititional difficulties caused. If it's a rucksack with slightly different straps, well, those are easily contracted, manufactured, and lightweight. What's more, I'd be surprised if a variation on a standard rucksack with just a different set of supportive straps couldn't be devised (since we manage to build rocket engines and other far more complex things!). These are minor enough changes, it's not like I'm suggesting kitting them out with special 'Fem' grenades, a three course meal every night, and different sized bullets to everyone else. If the US procurement service can't manage two sets of straps in a supply depot, you really HAVE got bigger problems than this!
Then you have the additional issue of morale and unit cohesion. The top priority for the USMC is creating an effective fighting unit. If only the top few women can pass the same standards that men are held to then are you accepting enough women in infantry slots to have them comprise a high enough percentage of the unit to have effective peer support? All of the male marines are united by shared experience and understanding, the female marines have a different set of problems to overcome and if there's only 1 female in a platoon or company then she has no peer support and it's harder for her to overcome the negatives of being the odd duck in the unit even without any sexist ostracization. There's a tipping point where you will have enough female marines in a unit to make it easier for them to be at their best and for the unit to function more cohesively, I don't know where that tipping point is but it's likely higher than the rate at which female marines can pass male standards for infantry slots.
Hence the mooting of all female marine infantry combat units. But frankly, practically everything you've just said up there could be levelled as reason to keep women out of the military altogether, so I won't repeat that debate here.
On top of that you have the fact that deployment decreases physical fitness. Being stuck on an outpost on a ridgeline in the Hindu Kush for weeks/months living off MREs degrades physical conditioning. Not by a tremendous amount but by enough that both the Army and Marines extensively study the effects and how to mitigate them. Even if both genders see an equal amount of decreased conditioning the male marines can start from a higher level of fitness than the female marines. If a female marine barely passes the standard fitness level and then sees her fitness level drop during deployment will that drop be enough to make her less effective and a liability?
I don't know. So like I said, do more tests and find out.
I don't think it's possible to come up with a strap design that suddenly allows a woman to carry her own bodyweight in a rucksack for several miles with ease. You could issue a separate ruck designed to help a smaller person carry a lighter load rather than have women carry a standard ruck that's half empty but there's no ergonomic answer to change the weight of a standard combat load of equipment. You can change the loadout for women and therefore issue them a different set of equipment for them or make them carry just as much as men and issue them the same equipment, Military logistics is never a particularly smooth running machine. That's how you get marines wearing woodland camo driving unarmored humvees in Iraq.
The issue of creating supportive peer groups for women in the infantry can't be construed as an argument for keeping women out of the military. There are a plethora of noncombat roles that women can do just as well as men. Hence the fact that there are already lots of women doing them in the armed forces. Those jobs by their nature, have plenty of women in them and thus can create peer groups to help each other succeed. Infantry requires a specific level of physical fitness that is very difficult for women to meet and therefore will always struggle to have the same percentage of females as say intelligence or logistics or communications.
There have been numerous studies done on the effect of active duty deployment on physical fitness. Here are the two I already posted, again. Women should be susceptible to the same negative physical affects of deployment as men, especially if they're doing the same jobs in the same environment. And again, in the infantry women would be dealing with the added burden that they have to be in peak physical condition to pass the required standards because it's a more physically demanding job than others.
Abstract : To examine change in physical fitness and body composition after a military deployment to Afghanistan. Methods: one hundred and ten infantry soldiers were measured before and after a 9-month deployment to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. Measurements included treadmill peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2), lifting strength, medicine ball put, vertical jump, and body composition estimated via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (percent body fat), absolute body fat, fat-free mass, bone mineral content, and bone mineral density. Results: There were significant decreases (P<0.01) in peak VO2 (-4.5%), medicine ball put(-4.9% body mass {-1.9%}, and fat-free mass{-3.5 %}, wheras percent body fat increased from 17.7% to 19.6%.
ABSTRACT
This investigation evaluated the effects of a 13-month deployment to Iraq on body composition and selected fitness measures. Seventy-three combat arms soldiers were measured pre- and postdeployment. Body composition was assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Strength was measured by single repetition maximum (1-RM) lifts on bench press and squat. Power was assessed by a bench throw and squat jump. Aerobic endurance was evaluated with a timed 2-mile run. Exercise and injury history were assessed by questionnaire. Upper and lower body strength improved by 7% and 8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Upper body power increased 9% (p < 0.001) and lean mass increased 3% (p < 0.05). In contrast, aerobic performance declined 13% (p < 0.001) and fat mass increased 9% (p < 0.05). Fewer soldiers participated in aerobic exercise or sports during deployment (p < 0.001). Unit commanders should be aware of potential fitness and body composition changes during deployment and develop physical training programs to enhance fitness following deployment.
Ghazkuul wrote: You can have the best LBE in the world, its still not going to help a 130lb female carry 130lbs of gear with her on a 22 mile patrol.
What about 130 pound males? I've known quite a few male, US soldiers who fit that description.
Regardless the idea that US soldiers carry too much weight, in general, is not anewone.
A 130lb man and a 130lb woman, regardless of their respective physical conditions are not biologically the same. At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.
d-usa wrote: Are you linking surveys or anecdotes?
Because this would be the third time explaining that anecdotes don't equal data.
If you want to argue that there are women who think this is a bad idea, then you are right. And your personal experience and links you keep on posting are good examples.
But if you keep on presenting female Marines as a unified front against integration, then you will need some actual data to back that up. And anecdotes and "people I talked to" don't cut it.
what is a survey D-USA?
You answered it:
Its a study that asks questions to individuals,
And there is the important part.
well I am giving you individuals that were asked a question and they answered it.
I know, those are called anecdotes.
They just didnt have 100-200 others answering with them.
They also didn't include a formal recording process, an explanation of the methodology, a list of the actual questions asked, how they were asked, how the people asked were selected, an analysis of the findings, how confident the surveyors are of the findings.
In short, they were not surveys.
So far all the stories i posted involved female Combat veterans and they all agree that it is a terrible idea.
Which is nice and dandy as long as you don't try to pass it off as the opinion of all female marines as a whole.
Well at the end of the day, only 1 service has done a study on females joining combat arms and the study showed females failing HARD. The full study hasn't been released but the 4 page executive summary has pretty much spelled out the results. You can argue about more data more data and more data but anyone who can put 2 and 2 together can see it is a bad idea and the Marines wont sacrifice combat efficiency for Social Justice.
And to that last comment, yeah I mean it. Even if the SecNav orders this to happen the Marines will foot drag and delay until they finally have nothing left to do. and then they will accept the handful of female grunts into their units....and promptly make them the unit clerk.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Social justice isn't worth my brothers dying because the female marine next to them couldn't cut it
Ghazkuul wrote: You can have the best LBE in the world, its still not going to help a 130lb female carry 130lbs of gear with her on a 22 mile patrol.
What about 130 pound males? I've known quite a few male, US soldiers who fit that description.
Regardless the idea that US soldiers carry too much weight, in general, is not anewone.
A 130lb man and a 130lb woman, regardless of their respective physical conditions are not biologically the same. At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.
Not true. Shoulder width (dependent on bone structure) will make a difference. I have quite narrow shoulders, so a broad-shouldered woman could easily outperform me at peak physical condition.
If your point is that we should make lighter weapons so women can serve in combat units then my rebuttal is that the weapon (m4) is light enough as is. Scrawny Israeli chicks carried them every day when I was in and never had any trouble.
The problem lies with the armor and other gear. A fighting load is around 80 lbs. A marching load is 120 lbs +. The backpack weight alone has very little to do with that. If we could use lighter equipment we would. It is a biological fact that women, on average, can't ruck as hard as men. End of story. Arguing against this point is arguing against biological fact. No amount of ergonomics improvement will make 120 lbs doable for someone with 20+% bodyfat on a 120-150 lb frame.
That's quite possibly the case. The question is to what extent this affects their ability in combat and the field, and if it is unfeasible, what mitigating factors can be introduced that would bring it within acceptable parameters. Simply declaring, 'No, it can't be done, buying a pair of shoes in the army is impossible, women are physically weak, they're too prone to injury' etc is focusing on entirely the wrong thing. We don't know what can be done, and we don't know if having attempted to mitigate the extraneous factors, it will still turn out to be inadvisable (due to the cost factors, or due to biological impossibility). The answer is to sit down, do the trials, apply human ingenuity, and find out.
There's nobody here proudly asserting, 'Women CAN be marines!' Instead, you have people saying, 'We need a spot more data before it's clear one way or the other'. Unfortunately, too many people believe that they already know the answer to the above. Which leads me to conclude that the number of wargamers that are psychics is astonishingly high.
With that, I think I'm done here.
Given an unlimited amount of time and money, it would be a great idea to conduct the studies that would give us a more clear picture about integrating women into combat arms. But at this particular moment in time, with the wars winding down, the services downsizing, and the military budget overall shrinking, it seems like an unnecessary expense for no foreseeable benefit. It's hard to say definitively if integrating females into combat arms would be a net positive or not, and with the data we have pointing to them being weaker, less effective and more injury prone, it just doesn't seem worth the cost for the small number of females that the current data suggests would be able to hack it.
It's all well and good to say that we could come up with two different kits, or modify the kits somehow, but dealing with the supply chain in the military is like dealing with any other government bureaucracy. These are mammoth institutions, and even now there's generally something jacked up in the system. When I went a good portion of my gear was stuff I'd purchased by myself, because the supply chain was inadequate or the stuff I purchased was more efficient. And I was Army! Every Marine I've talked to agreed that their supply chain was worse than ours. I can't see how adding in the complication and expense is going to be of any net benefit to the military.
At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.
I'm not certain of that. Women tend to actively develop core and lower body strength more frequently than men, both of these things are critical to carrying a heavy load for long periods of time.
Ghazkuul wrote: Well at the end of the day, only 1 service has done a study on females joining combat arms and the study showed females failing HARD.
It's hard to know what the study shows because as you point out:
The full study hasn't been released but the 4 page executive summary has pretty much spelled out the results.
There is a reason why people actually look at studies and not at 4 page "this is what I think the study found" summaries.
You can argue about more data more data and more data
Because that is how studies work. If you don't have a big enough sample size it is compromised. If you can't, or won't, repeat it then it is useless. Releasing a summary without the actual data? Useless.
What is your background in research?
but anyone who can put 2 and 2 together can see it is a bad idea and the Marines wont sacrifice combat efficiency for Social Justice.
Well, the leadership will institute whatever policy they want even if the Marine Corps is a sexist patriarchy and people opposed to the idea think that men are the superior sex and that women should be sitting behind a desk looking pretty for the male grunts dropping by to drop off paperwork before they go back out to the front lines where the superior sex belongs because penises.
Or, my suggestion and simple request, we can stop pretending that people who have questions about the data and the methodology or who think women have a role in combat or who think that disadvantages can be solved with technology or other changes in other areas are simply doing this for "social justice" reasons and then we won't have to pretend that people opposed to the idea are simply opposed because of "herpderp penises are better" reasons.
At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.
I'm not certain of that. Women tend to actively develop core and lower body strength more frequently than men, both of these things are critical to carrying a heavy load for long periods of time.
Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time? Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?
At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.
I'm not certain of that. Women tend to actively develop core and lower body strength more frequently than men, both of these things are critical to carrying a heavy load for long periods of time.
Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time? Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?
Or is it that the men (on average) are simply bigger and heavier? I'm sure the increased injuries statistic didn't take into account the size and weight of the people used.
D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.
This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.
The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.
I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.
Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.
Ghazkuul wrote: D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.
This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.
The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.
I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.
Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.
Men are better at some things than women on average.
At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.
I'm not certain of that. Women tend to actively develop core and lower body strength more frequently than men, both of these things are critical to carrying a heavy load for long periods of time.
Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time? Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?
Or is it that the men (on average) are simply bigger and heavier? I'm sure the increased injuries statistic didn't take into account the size and weight of the people used.
Check out the olympics, women in the 58kg weight class in weightlifting lift less weight than men in the 56kg weight class. Same event, slightly larger women, best athletes in the world in their sport and men outperform them by a significant margin. The same results are found in other olympic events but they don't all have weight classes to make the comparison more equitable.
Ghazkuul wrote: D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.
This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units.
Considering that this thread started off with a study, and that the study is being used as a justification for what the policy should be, the topic of "how a study should be done if you want it to be useful" is very much the topic.
If you are going to claim that the study makes a certain point, then I (and others) will point out that we don't know what the study actually found since we don't have the actual study, that the sample size was to small, and that it needs to be repeated to test for validity.
Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.
Only if one were to pretend that you couldn't initiate another study now and run it past the deadline. The data and findings will still be useful even if an arbitrary policy deadline has passed. And the civilian leadership of the military changes whenever the administration changes, sometimes even during the same administration, so future administrations can still use studies that were performed after the deadline.
That's how data works. That's how studies work. That's how leadership works.
The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.
When you stop painting the opposition as SJWs, then your points would look more credible.
I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.
Funny you say that, because studies have shown that whether or not speeding past a police officer is going to result in a ticket depends on many factors and you don't get one automatically.
Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.
There is one person in this thread that keeps on making it about social justice, and if you look at the reflection in your monitor you will find out who it is.
Ghazkuul wrote: D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.
This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.
The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.
I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.
Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.
Men are better at some things than women on average.
How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.
Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time?
The unwillingness of male Marines to report injuries, or undue stress on their bodies? The "suck it up" mentality is something US Marines focus on and is not exclusive to that organization.
Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?
You could be correct, but that only supports the notion that physical tests should be emphasized.
Ghazkuul wrote: D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.
This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.
The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.
I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.
Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.
Men are better at some things than women on average.
How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.
Prestor it doesnt matter. Shrike is in fact a SJW who doesn't care a lick for how much this will cost, how many people die because of it, just so long as everything is equal and fair. I am not going as far as saying that D-USA is a SJW because I dont think he is, I think he is one of those fellows who think the whole world revolves around stats and figures and studies and thinks that if you haven't had 10-20 studies on something you can't say its true or use it in an argument.
Beyond D-USA and his constant harping of Studies, the only people who disagree with barring woman from Infantry are those who have no idea about the subject and think regardless of injury rates, budget costs and military strength that woman should be allowed to do this. So it is about the same as trying to point out to a brick wall that Steel is a stronger construction material then Wood.
EDIT: On AVERAGE steel is a stronger construction material then wood. There you go shrike i saved you the time.
Also just to clarify: I'm not even arguing that women should be in all combat roles no matter what. Hell, I work for the VA and I know that we will have issues down the road with increased numbers of female veterans.
I also would like to form an informed opinion about integration, and that needs data. Not feelings and "knowledge" from either side.
That's why you don't find me arguing for or against this, instead you find me questioning data and methodology.
If I remember right new service rifles where going to get our service men killed and everybody "knew" that.
d-usa wrote: Also just to clarify: I'm not even arguing that women should be in all combat roles no matter what. Hell, I work for the VA and I know that we will have issues down the road with increased numbers of female veterans.
I also would like to form an informed opinion about integration, and that needs data. Not feelings and "knowledge" from either side.
That's why you don't find me arguing for or against this, instead you find me questioning data and methodology.
If I remember right new service rifles where going to get our service men killed and everybody "knew" that.
what "New" service rifles? the M4 which is the same thing as the M16 except a tad bit lighter and shorter? hell it has almost all the same parts to lol.
Ghazkuul wrote: D-USA you don't even argue against the point that everyone here has made. Woman are weaker then men. Instead you keep saying Study this and study that.
This isn's a topic about how studies are done. It is about whether woman should be allowed into Marine infantry units. Since the deadline is fast approaching (2016) and there isn't enough time for any other service to complete another 9 month study, the USMC study is the only one your going to get.
The damning thing about this is that it didn't matter what the USMC said, or what the study said or whether or not woman have a chance at infantry in the USMC. SecNav decided this long before which means that he is in essence a SJW with the political agenda of his party more at heart then the needs of the military. His career so far has proven that and the fact that you sit there trying to debate people on a simple point that anyone who has ever been to a gym can see is beyond reasoning.
I am just curious. Should we take it as common knowledge that if you speed past a Police officer he is going to give you a ticket? Or should we spend a couple years and millions of dollars researching and studying it.
Some things are obvious and don't need a hundred studies done on them and this is one of them. Go ahead and enter into the "Misogynist" spiel you were on a second ago because "penises" but the fact remains men are better at some things then woman and vice versa.
Men are better at some things than women on average.
How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.
Prestor it doesnt matter. Shrike is in fact a SJW who doesn't care a lick for how much this will cost, how many people die because of it, just so long as everything is equal and fair. I am not going as far as saying that D-USA is a SJW because I dont think he is, I think he is one of those fellows who think the whole world revolves around stats and figures and studies and thinks that if you haven't had 10-20 studies on something you can't say its true or use it in an argument.
Beyond D-USA and his constant harping of Studies, the only people who disagree with barring woman from Infantry are those who have no idea about the subject and think regardless of injury rates, budget costs and military strength that woman should be allowed to do this. So it is about the same as trying to point out to a brick wall that Steel is a stronger construction material then Wood.
EDIT: On AVERAGE steel is a stronger construction material then wood. There you go shrike i saved you the time.
Gaz, are you saying that despite what Starship Troopers, and GI Jane depict, along with 40K victories won using combined Sister/IG armies is not reason enough to integrate women into real life Marine combat infantry units?
d-usa wrote: Also just to clarify: I'm not even arguing that women should be in all combat roles no matter what. Hell, I work for the VA and I know that we will have issues down the road with increased numbers of female veterans.
I also would like to form an informed opinion about integration, and that needs data. Not feelings and "knowledge" from either side.
That's why you don't find me arguing for or against this, instead you find me questioning data and methodology.
If I remember right new service rifles where going to get our service men killed and everybody "knew" that.
what "New" service rifles? the M4 which is the same thing as the M16 except a tad bit lighter and shorter? hell it has almost all the same parts to lol.
The M16 actually. I don't think it was initially well received when it was introduced becaus "it would get people killed" and "the old rifle was fine".
Relapse wrote: This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides.
You forgot the third one. People oversimplifying and miscategorising a discussion to try and appear smart.
Nobody else is taking this personally. Criticize the point, not the individual.
If your point is that we should make lighter weapons so women can serve in combat units then my rebuttal is that the weapon (m4) is light enough as is. Scrawny Israeli chicks carried them every day when I was in and never had any trouble.
The problem lies with the armor and other gear. A fighting load is around 80 lbs. A marching load is 120 lbs +. The backpack weight alone has very little to do with that. If we could use lighter equipment we would. It is a biological fact that women, on average, can't ruck as hard as men. End of story. Arguing against this point is arguing against biological fact. No amount of ergonomics improvement will make 120 lbs doable for someone with 20+% bodyfat on a 120-150 lb frame.
To clarify- women have a place in the military. Women have a place in combat, and can make fantastic pilots, tankers, etc. Women won't make good infantry because of biological limitations. Even if they roided their asses off, the female skeletal frame is not made to support the same activities as the male frame.
Nugz, how are Israeli women intergrated into the combat forces over there? Do they get put in with all combat units or certain select ones. This could answer some of the debate going on here.
Israel is one of only a few nations that conscript women or deploy them in combat roles, although in practice, women can avoid conscription through a religious exemption and over a third of Israeli women do so.[25] A study of women in the IDF from 2002 to 2005 found that women are often superior in discipline, motivation and marksmanship. However, the study noted that women still face gender discrimination in the IDF.[26]
That is very interesting. Thanks for pointing it out, Relapse.
Edit: Wow, there's a lot of interesting stuff going on. Their army is fairly sexist and still
Gender segregation or sex segregation is allowed in the IDF, and the IDF reached what it considers a "new milestone" in 2006, creating the first company of soldiers segregated in an all female unit, the Nachshol (Hebrew for "giant wave") Reconnaissance Company. "We are the only unit in the world made up entirely of female combat soldiers," said Nachshol Company Commander Cpt. Dana Ben-Ezra. "My girls often carry out tasks more difficult than those of male combat soldiers."[39]
Prestor Jon wrote: How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.
Your question isn't one that anyone here can answer, so I won't try. Sorry about that.
Ghazkuul wrote: Prestor it doesnt matter. Shrike is in fact a SJW
Real classy, making assumptions about who I am and what I want.
who doesn't care a lick for how much this will cost
Depends on how you implement any sort of change. How about better screening before sending people to training camps?
how many people die because of it
How many people will die if females are allowed into front-line combat, with the same minimum requirements as men?
just so long as everything is equal and fair.
Well, equality is nice. I'm sure being short is just disadvantageous in the military as being female, yet you allow short people in.
I am not going as far as saying that D-USA is a SJW because I dont think he is, I think he is one of those fellows who think the whole world revolves around stats and figures and studies and thinks that if you haven't had 10-20 studies on something you can't say its true or use it in an argument.
No, I think d-usa disagrees fundamentally with some of the rather interesting claims you've been making in this thread.
Beyond D-USA and his constant harping of Studies, the only people who disagree with barring woman from Infantry are those who have no idea about the subject and think regardless of injury rates, budget costs and military strength that woman should be allowed to do this. So it is about the same as trying to point out to a brick wall that Steel is a stronger construction material then Wood.
EDIT: On AVERAGE steel is a stronger construction material then wood. There you go shrike i saved you the time.
Israel is one of only a few nations that conscript women or deploy them in combat roles, although in practice, women can avoid conscription through a religious exemption and over a third of Israeli women do so.[25] A study of women in the IDF from 2002 to 2005 found that women are often superior in discipline, motivation and marksmanship. However, the study noted that women still face gender discrimination in the IDF.[26]
That is very interesting. Thanks for pointing it out, Relapse.
No problem. It's been a question on my mind throughout this debate. I thought perhaps it would be good to see how a nation whose literal existance hinges on how it's military is configured would provide some good clues. It was a good article you linked, and many thanks for that. Here is the interesting part that stood out to me:
"As of 2010, 88% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates. and women could be found in 69% of all IDF positions.[33] Elana Sztokman notes it would be "difficult to claim that women are equals in the IDF." The IDF concedes that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions. Rather, they are concentrated in "combat-support" positions which command a lower compensation and status than combat positions."
It appears that they are leaving the main amount of fight on the ground to the men and have most of the women in support positions. Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.
Relapse wrote: This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides. Marines who have extensive combat experience who know first hand what it would take for someone to be able to hack it in an extended real life situation who say putting a woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk than the social experiment is worth.
You (and others) seem to be pleading to authority. So it's important to ask what you are actually an authority on. I will grant you that marines who have extensive combat experience, are no doubt experts in what it is like to hack it in a combat situation. However, if they start claiming "woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk." that would seem to fall outside their area of expertise. Aside from a few anecdotes, I doubt they know much more than any other layman about the limitations of female fitness. Also many people would say that institutional sexism is still very prevalent in the military. So a bunch of macho military types saying "girls aren't good enough", doesn't really carry much weight.
On the other hand we have those who believe SOME women could do just as well as a man in the field...
That is almost a certainty. I'll admit that there probably aren't many women who weigh 70kg and can do 20 chin ups in 3 mins, but if a woman can cut it physically and she wants in, then the army should be glad to have her.
Relapse wrote: It appears that they are leaving the main amount of fight on the ground to the men and have most of the women in support positions. Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.
It is worth keeping in mind that Israel has mandatory conscription for women as well, and while ~30% sit out for religious reasons, it still means those 4% are quite a lot.
Relapse wrote: Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.
Probably nowhere near the amount American marines seem to have to carry, given the plethora of articles about how heavy their load is.
(Of course, Israel probably operates slightly differently, given that their military almost exclusively takes part in engagements near home territory, but I don't know to what extent that would affect things.)
Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time?
The unwillingness of male Marines to report injuries, or undue stress on their bodies? The "suck it up" mentality is something US Marines focus on and is not exclusive to that organization.
Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?
You could be correct, but that only supports the notion that physical tests should be emphasized.
Physical tests were emphasized.
And are you actually arguing that the female marines in this test were more prone to whine about injuries than males? That is pathetic. If anything, they had more reason to 'suck it up' but the fact is, certain injuries, which they suffered in much higher percentages than their male counterparts, prevented them from task completion and in some cases from completing the overall test.
That really isn't disputable. And other tests conducted in the past have shown very similar results (I brought them up way before this test was even started in a thread of a similar topic).
Relapse wrote: Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.
Probably nowhere near the amount American marines seem to have to carry, given the plethora of articles about how heavy their load is.
(Of course, Israel probably operates slightly differently, given that their military almost exclusively takes part in engagements near home territory, but I don't know to what extent that would affect things.)
People like to bring up the IDF. In these discussions. As an IDF infantry veteran I can give you my perspective :
Women only served (when I was in...07 to 09) in one combat infantry battalion in the IDF, Carcal. I understand since then they've opened a second unit. Female infantry in the IDF serve alongside male counterparts. Those units are not regular infantry units and they don't participate in open warfare.
1) Carcal doesn't require the same health profile as other infantry units. It's for women and men with physical health problems like bad knee/back etc.
2) Carcal works on the Egyptian border specifically where human trafficking is a problem. For this reason having women available to strip search detainees is practical.
3) Most of their work is mounted.
There are women in other combat units like field intelligence but again they are not infantry units and do not participate in open warfare.
Prestor Jon wrote: How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.
Your question isn't one that anyone here can answer, so I won't try. Sorry about that.
Ghazkuul wrote: Prestor it doesnt matter. Shrike is in fact a SJW
Real classy, making assumptions about who I am and what I want.
who doesn't care a lick for how much this will cost
Depends on how you implement any sort of change. How about better screening before sending people to training camps?
how many people die because of it
How many people will die if females are allowed into front-line combat, with the same minimum requirements as men?
just so long as everything is equal and fair.
Well, equality is nice. I'm sure being short is just disadvantageous in the military as being female, yet you allow short people in.
I am not going as far as saying that D-USA is a SJW because I dont think he is, I think he is one of those fellows who think the whole world revolves around stats and figures and studies and thinks that if you haven't had 10-20 studies on something you can't say its true or use it in an argument.
No, I think d-usa disagrees fundamentally with some of the rather interesting claims you've been making in this thread.
Beyond D-USA and his constant harping of Studies, the only people who disagree with barring woman from Infantry are those who have no idea about the subject and think regardless of injury rates, budget costs and military strength that woman should be allowed to do this. So it is about the same as trying to point out to a brick wall that Steel is a stronger construction material then Wood.
EDIT: On AVERAGE steel is a stronger construction material then wood. There you go shrike i saved you the time.
*sigh* Broad brush strokes.
1: not making assumptions, making an educated assessment based on your posts and your complete lack of understanding of the opposite side of this argument. So far you haven't conceded anything.
2:short people are not at a disadvantage to the military. In fact short people have many specific uses in the Infantry. However, they still have to be strong.
3:Broad brush strokes huh? your entire argument is based on the fact that a handful of woman would be Average or slightly above average in the infantry. And you thin that they should be given the chance to join the infantry. That is a fine thought, except this isn't a college campus or a Corporation, this is front line combat where you are expected to pull your share. Several Anecdotes taken from Marines in the study (Male and Female) said they felt females on AVERAGE could not cut it. Many of the females complained of hip problems and one even mentioned that she and her friend were the only ones out of 12 females in their company to not suffer sufficient injuries to be put on light duty for one of the training periods. And that female eventually dropped on request due to injuries.
Because I disagree with Woman in the Infantry you and your buddies on here have labeled me a sexist. So because I don't agree with your point of view I am wrong. Noted.
The worst part about this is that the SecNav is a SJW as well and doesn't care about combat efficiency and cares more for making policy changes to reflect what the President wants for his legacy.
Relapse wrote: This thread seems to be boiling down to two sides. Marines who have extensive combat experience who know first hand what it would take for someone to be able to hack it in an extended real life situation who say putting a woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk than the social experiment is worth.
You (and others) seem to be pleading to authority. So it's important to ask what you are actually an authority on. I will grant you that marines who have extensive combat experience, are no doubt experts in what it is like to hack it in a combat situation. However, if they start claiming "woman in a front line infantry unit would put more people at risk." that would seem to fall outside their area of expertise. Aside from a few anecdotes, I doubt they know much more than any other layman about the limitations of female fitness. Also many people would say that institutional sexism is still very prevalent in the military. So a bunch of macho military types saying "girls aren't good enough", doesn't really carry much weight.
On the other hand we have those who believe SOME women could do just as well as a man in the field...
That is almost a certainty. I'll admit that there probably aren't many women who weigh 70kg and can do 20 chin ups in 3 mins, but if a woman can cut it physically and she wants in, then the army should be glad to have her.
I'm sitting on the sidelines leaning heavily towards believing the Marines on this page who have been in combat and know first hand the stress, both physical and mental involved. I grew up in farm country where I spent my youth, from 9 to 15, working from 5 to 7 daily in the summer vacation months, doing light work at first, but building into, as I got older and stronger, clearing fields of rocks, haying, herding cattle and pigs as well as doing all the other associated work. Women would sometimes be out there with the men, but 99 % of the time would be doing the lighter work, tractor and truck driving, combining,etc, but leaving the heavier stuff alone because men are better suited to it and won't hurt themselves as much as women would.
That's what I base some of my opinion on with women doing extended heavy labor like has been depicted by Ghaz and others.
CptJake wrote: Stop it Nuggz, you'll destroy that myth of The Israeli Infantry Women that folks like to point to as evidence It Works.
Everyone has their fantasies. Unfortunately all the hotties go to the air force. Maybe if the infantry training bases had swimming pools we could compete.
Relapse wrote: It appears that they are leaving the main amount of fight on the ground to the men and have most of the women in support positions. Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.
It is worth keeping in mind that Israel has mandatory conscription for women as well, and while ~30% sit out for religious reasons, it still means those 4% are quite a lot.
Very true. Israel is in a situation where it has to be "all hands on deck" or the country is gone the next time a couple or three countries take it into their minds to invade it. In a live or die based on the strength of you military situation, where women get placed telling, and I'm fairly sure Israel has the data to justify the way it's forces are configured..
Relapse wrote: It appears that they are leaving the main amount of fight on the ground to the men and have most of the women in support positions. Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.
It is worth keeping in mind that Israel has mandatory conscription for women as well, and while ~30% sit out for religious reasons, it still means those 4% are quite a lot.
Very true. Israel is in a situation where it has to be "all hands on deck" or the country is gone the next time a couple or three countries take it into their minds to invade it. In a live or die based on the strength of you military situation, where women get placed telling, and I'm fairly sure Israel has the data to justify the way it's forces are configured..
I believe crew served weapons aren't issued to women generally. I've never seen a picture of anyone in Carcal packing a Negev or MAG let alone one of the female soldiers so my educated guess would be that in those units they hump their fair share of a much smaller load because of the way the unit operates (i.e , mounted in hummers and without crew served weapons).
Ghazkuul wrote: 1: not making assumptions, making an educated assessment based on your posts and your complete lack of understanding of the opposite side of this argument. So far you haven't conceded anything.
The position you are advocating is that women should not be in combat because they are women and are inherently weaker. I disagree, I think height and shoulder width are a much better basis on which to preclude people from active duty. If that includes a higher proportion of women than men, it doesn't matter.
2:short people are not at a disadvantage to the military. In fact short people have many specific uses in the Infantry. However, they still have to be strong.
A short man and a slightly taller woman are probably equally strong, but you would bar the women from front-line combat.
3:Broad brush strokes huh? your entire argument is based on the fact that a handful of woman would be Average or slightly above average in the infantry. And you thin that they should be given the chance to join the infantry.
Yes. If that is what they want, and they pass all the requirements, why not?
That is a fine thought, except this isn't a college campus or a Corporation, this is front line combat where you are expected to pull your share.
Obviously. If they jump through all of the hoops, what would prevent them from pulling their share?
Several Anecdotes taken from Marines in the study (Male and Female) said they felt females on AVERAGE could not cut it. Many of the females complained of hip problems and one even mentioned that she and her friend were the only ones out of 12 females in their company to not suffer sufficient injuries to be put on light duty for one of the training periods. And that female eventually dropped on request due to injuries.
Wow, anecdotes again. If the average women can't cut it, don't take the average. Institute a better screening process for potential recruits.
Because I disagree with Woman in the Infantry you and your buddies on here have labeled me a sexist.
I'm not sure I have buddies on here, but do show me where I've called you sexist.
So because I don't agree with your point of view I am wrong. Noted.
Again, is that what I actually said?
The worst part about this is that the SecNav is a SJW as well and doesn't care about combat efficiency and cares more for making policy changes to reflect what the President wants for his legacy.
The less you talk about SJWs, the more serious a discussion we'll be able to have.
CptJake wrote: Stop it Nuggz, you'll destroy that myth of The Israeli Infantry Women that folks like to point to as evidence It Works.
Everyone has their fantasies. Unfortunately all the hotties go to the air force. Maybe if the infantry training bases had swimming pools we could compete.
Females with broad shoulders still have female pelvises. That is the major difference that contributes to many of the injuries. Broad shoulders don't compensate.
CptJake wrote: Females with broad shoulders still have female pelvises. That is the major difference that contributes to many of the injuries. Broad shoulders don't compensate.
Which injuries are those? (Sorry, I'm sure someone mentioned it earlier, but this thread is quite hard to search through by now)
CptJake wrote: Stop it Nuggz, you'll destroy that myth of The Israeli Infantry Women that folks like to point to as evidence It Works.
Everyone has their fantasies. Unfortunately all the hotties go to the air force. Maybe if the infantry training bases had swimming pools we could compete.
Hmmm. Your article is very VERY sparse on how it is working out for any of them. For example, how many females have made it into Australia's SAS? How many of the 2% of females in the Canadian Army that are combat arms are infantry? How do they perform? How do the females making up just 1.7% of French infantry do? Of the 800 females in German 'combat units', how many are infantry? How are they performing? We already know about female infantry in the Israeli Army.
Do the Russians have ANY females in combat arms, specifically infantry or armor? Or are females just allowed in their military?
CptJake wrote: Females with broad shoulders still have female pelvises. That is the major difference that contributes to many of the injuries. Broad shoulders don't compensate.
Which injuries are those? (Sorry, I'm sure someone mentioned it earlier, but this thread is quite hard to search through by now)
Lower body injuries due to carrying heavy weight for extended distances/time. Female hips, ankles, knees, feet all suffered more than the males. And a lot of that is due to the skeletal differences of the pelvis and how weight is born due to those differences.
It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.
Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.
And are you actually arguing that the female marines in this test were more prone to whine about injuries than males?
No, I am claiming that female Marines are more likely to admit to being injured because male Marines, and male soldiers in general, don't like to do as much.
It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.
Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.
This isn't about sexism. How big a ruck did a Russian female infantry woman carry in ww2? She wasn't wearing armor, carrying as much equipment, etc. As I understand it Russian females were largely serving in sniper roles. It's silly to cite cases from 70 years ago when today's requirements are completely different.
And are you actually arguing that the female marines in this test were more prone to whine about injuries than males?
No, I am claiming that female Marines are more likely to admit to being injured because male Marines, and male soldiers in general, don't like to do as much.
What do you mean 'not when it comes to a specific MOS'? All the females in this test went through the initial infantry training prior to it. Of course physical tests were emphasized both in that training and in this test.
As for your claim, I think you are very wrong, especially in regards to this test, which is what we are talking about. An injury is an injury. It either slows you down/prevents mission accomplishment or does not. If you want to claim the females 'tapped out early' that itself would say a LOT about their suitability to be infantry. I personally don't think they did so. There is no indication they did, everything I've read points to them trying as hard if not harder than the men.
No, I am claiming that female Marines are more likely to admit to being injured because male Marines, and male soldiers in general, don't like to do as much.
Do you have any information to substantiate that claim? Because the alternative seems just as plausible.
Relapse wrote: I'm sitting on the sidelines leaning heavily towards believing the Marines on this page who have been in combat and know first hand the stress, both physical and mental involved. I grew up in farm country where I spent my youth, from 9 to 15, working from 5 to 7 daily in the summer vacation months, doing light work at first, but building into, as I got older and stronger, clearing fields of rocks, haying, herding cattle and pigs as well as doing all the other associated work. Women would sometimes be out there with the men, but 99 % of the time would be doing the lighter work, tractor and truck driving, combining,etc, but leaving the heavier stuff alone because men are better suited to it and won't hurt themselves as much as women would.
That's what I base some of my opinion on with women doing extended heavy labor like has been depicted by Ghaz and others.
Sorry, I didn't really mean to pick on you so directly, I was just trying to point out that being an expert soldier, does not make someone an expert on women. So when we ask those who have served for expert testimony, they can tell us that it is extremely hard, and we aught to believe them because they know first hand it is hard, but when they tell us it is too hard for any woman, we aught not to believe them because they do not know all women.
I would say that your experiences (despite being anecdotal) are probably dead on. Women aren't generally as strong and physical as men. We all knew that, and the test the OP linked showed it in no uncertain terms. But it is still a generalization, which is why it is wrong, because there will be individual women who are incredibly strong and fast and robust, like the women we see competing at the Olympics. I was on my school athletics team, but there are still girls at the Olympics who can shave a second off my best 100m time. A system that would allow an exceptional woman to be passed up for a man, just because he's a man, is sexist. If a woman is able to do the job, and she wants to do the job, then she should not be denied the opportunity based on stereotypes and generalizations.
Set one physical fitness standard for ALL recruits to combat units. Make it 100% gender-blind, all women recruits should be expected to meet the same standard as men. That should help maintain unit effectiveness because all members meet the same minimum standard of physical fitness. If that means that fewer women are able to successfully pass selection, tough. A Military is not a mechanism for social engineering. I was hoping to apply to the RAF, but theres a blanket ban on applicants with Aspergers (which I may have). Thats tough too.
But of course that will outrage proponents of affirmative action.
No, I am claiming that female Marines are more likely to admit to being injured because male Marines, and male soldiers in general, don't like to do as much.
Do you have any information to substantiate that claim? Because the alternative seems just as plausible.
Yeah, I know it is anecdotal, but when my wife broke her back and got 4 weeks bed rest, she 'sucked it up' and was back on the job 2 days after they fitted her with a brace so she could walk (5 days after the accident that broke 2 vertebrae, and no, she is not trying to be an infantryman). And I've had female soldiers in both the companies I commanded, and the ability to 'suck it up' and drive on through pain/injuries was something they displayed at the same proportion as my male troopers, if not more. I had some sick call profile riding turds of both sexes and some females that you had to force to get an injury looked at.
Do you have any information to substantiate that claim? Because the alternative seems just as plausible.
My anecdotal evidence as a male athlete, and male personal trainer who has worked with male and female athletes, male and female PTs, and male and female soldiers; suggests otherwise.
Set one physical fitness standard for ALL recruits to combat units. Make it 100% gender-blind, all women recruits should be expected to meet the same standard as men. That should help maintain unit effectiveness because all members meet the same minimum standard of physical fitness. If that means that fewer women are able to successfully pass selection, tough. A Military is not a mechanism for social engineering. I was hoping to apply to the RAF, but theres a blanket ban on applicants with Aspergers (which I may have). Thats tough too.
But of course that will outrage proponents of affirmative action.
What if the tests don't really predict performance all that well, as the summary suggests?
Would an alternative be a tougher test for women who want to serve in combat roles if a tougher entry test would be shown to correlate to an identical performance in the field?
When all our military members start wearing exoskeleton suits, will any of this matter?
Do you have any information to substantiate that claim? Because the alternative seems just as plausible.
My anecdotal evidence as a male athlete, and male personal trainer who has worked with male and female athletes, male and female PTs, and male and female soldiers; suggests otherwise.
A study on malingering in male and female soldiers serving in combat arms would be a lot more convincing.
That said, such a study wont be necessary if we know the ground truth. It's kind of hard to fake or ignore the types of injuries these articles suggest.
I found this video ages ago which I think gives possibly the best explanation I've heard for why women shouldn't fight (or at least why it feels wrong). Warning: if you press play you may get hooked on the Lindybeige channel for some days:
It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.
Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.
This isn't about sexism. How big a ruck did a Russian female infantry woman carry in ww2? She wasn't wearing armor, carrying as much equipment, etc. As I understand it Russian females were largely serving in sniper roles. It's silly to cite cases from 70 years ago when today's requirements are completely different.
That said, such a study wont be necessary if we know the ground truth. It's kind of hard to fake or ignore the types of injuries these articles suggest.
That said, such a study wont be necessary if we know the ground truth. It's kind of hard to fake or ignore the types of injuries these articles suggest.
Which articles?
I'm on my phone but a cursory GooglIng reveals: "musculoskeletal injuries in military women"
It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.
Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.
This isn't about sexism. How big a ruck did a Russian female infantry woman carry in ww2? She wasn't wearing armor, carrying as much equipment, etc. As I understand it Russian females were largely serving in sniper roles. It's silly to cite cases from 70 years ago when today's requirements are completely different.
Mind you, they also were machine gunners.
Sure, in static defensive positions. Did any of those women carry machine guns on patrol along with 100+ lbs of body armor and ammunition? Those are the requirements for infantry these days.
Ashiraya wrote: I do not know, it does not say. Why not? We all know that the eastern front was not all that static. This was WW2, not WW1.
I don't think anybody is arguing that women make poor killers, or even poor soldiers. The discussion is specifically about their ability to perform in the infantry role. If they aren't rucking that machine gun up a mountain side then it isn't really relevant. I'm sure Russian ladies put many a Nazi to the Mosin in ww2. I doubt that female machine gunners and ammo bearers participated in any offensive that required long treks on foot but I would love to read about it if you have that information.
Ps: have you ever held a GPMG like a MAG or 240 bravo? I served at 5'11 ~215 and had a background in bodybuilding and powerlifting and it was still fething heavy lol
Then you may want to find references that help make your point. So far, you're not doing to well at that.
The fact is, most females in the Russian Army in WW2 were in support roles (many medics/signal types for example). Yes, there were some notable exceptions (the ladies flying those bi-planes, a few snipers and tank crews) but they were exceptions.
You want to find examples like SGT Hester (a silver star winner that Hollywood should have made a movie about, her story makes GI Jane look as silly as, well, GI Jane). But even her action, as recent and modern as it is, is an exceptional example of a female soldier kicking ass, but NOT that female's soldier typical role (nor her sustained role).
There are several great stories about female Apache pilots as well, ladies with a REAL warrior spirit who blew the gak out of lots of bad guys and saved a lot of troops in contact. The point there is females can definitely be killers without being infantry. They can be aggressive in situations like the one SGT Hester was put into, and do well.
Ashiraya wrote: I do not know, it does not say. Why not? We all know that the eastern front was not all that static. This was WW2, not WW1.
You mean highly mobile like the Battle of Stalingrad...about a 6 month long battle for a single city. I think that is the definition of static when you compare it to the western fronts
The Eastern front was only really mobile in 2 phases, the initial german invasion which swept all the way to Stalingrad/moscow and then the eventual Russian counter attack which pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin. In between that was a fairly long phase of immobile static warfare. Also you don't see much historic mention of Russian females in combat outside of those two battle grounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Artillery would also be a really bad combat MOS for females as well. Having to carry 100+lb Shells into the breach as fast as physically possible to lay down barrages...I don't see that ending well.
Ashiraya wrote: I do not know, it does not say. Why not? We all know that the eastern front was not all that static. This was WW2, not WW1.
You mean highly mobile like the Battle of Stalingrad...about a 6 month long battle for a single city. I think that is the definition of static when you compare it to the western fronts
The Eastern front was only really mobile in 2 phases, the initial german invasion which swept all the way to Stalingrad/moscow and then the eventual Russian counter attack which pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin. In between that was a fairly long phase of immobile static warfare. Also you don't see much historic mention of Russian females in combat outside of those two battle grounds.
That's not true at all. There were a few very large set piece battles like the sieges of Stalingrad, Leningrad and Budapest in the scale of the entire war in the east, which lasted almost 4 years. A large part of the German early successes was their knack for maneuver warfare and combined arms and, the Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, used extensively until '43, emphasized fast moving armor formations in the enemy rear. German experience and the fact that the Soviets had poor methods of command and control, which was only exacerbated by Stalin's purges of the officer corps in the 30's, made the war drag on longer than it should.
Of note, the terrain in Iraq is a lot more forgiving than that in Afghanistan for the most part. Dismounted patrol distances tended to be shorter too.
ABSTRACT A longitudinal cohort analysis of disease nonbattle injuries (DNBI) sustained by a large combat-deployed maneuver unit has not been performed.
A descriptive analysis was undertaken to evaluate for DNBI casualty care statistics incurred by a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team (BCT) during a counterinsurgency campaign of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Of the 4,122 soldiers deployed, there were 1,324 DNBI with 5 (0.38%) deaths, 208 (15.7%) medical evacuations (MEDEVAC), and 1,111 (83.9%) returned to duty. The DNBI casualty rate for the BCT was 257.0/1,000 soldier combat-years. Females, compared with males, had a significantly increased incidence rate ratio for becoming a DNBI casualty 1.67 (95% CI 1.37, 2.04). Of 47 female soldiers receiving MEDEVAC 35 (74%) were for pregnancy-related issues. Musculoskeletal injuries (50.4%) and psychiatric disorders (23.3%) were the most common body systems involved with DNBI casualties. Among the BCT cohort the psychiatric DNBI casualty rate and suicide rate were 59.8 and 0.58 per 1,000 soldier combat-years. The BCT cohort incidence rates for common musculoskeletal injuries per 1,000 combat-years were as follows: ankle sprain 15.3, anterior cruciate ligament rupture 3.3 and shoulder dislocation 1.2.
Musculoskeletal injuries and psychiatric disorders accounted for 74% of the total DNBI casualties, and 43% of the DNBI casualties requiring subsequent MEDEVAC. The BCT cohort had a suicide rate nearly four times greater than previously reported, and selected musculoskeletal injury incidence rates were fivefold greater than the general population.
A part I found interesting, especially as some folks want to rule out sexuality as an issue, was this section:
Female average daily DNBI hospital admission rates during the initial stages OIF and OEF were reported to be 16% and 74%,respectively,greater than males. Of note in this study is that all 35 females with reproductive issues to include pregnancy, miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy were MEDEVAC (Table III). Thus, alarmingly 10.8% of females were lost to the theatre of operations due to female reproductive DNBI and 74% of all female DNBI MEDEV AC were pregnancy related.
Relapse wrote: I'm sitting on the sidelines leaning heavily towards believing the Marines on this page who have been in combat and know first hand the stress, both physical and mental involved. I grew up in farm country where I spent my youth, from 9 to 15, working from 5 to 7 daily in the summer vacation months, doing light work at first, but building into, as I got older and stronger, clearing fields of rocks, haying, herding cattle and pigs as well as doing all the other associated work. Women would sometimes be out there with the men, but 99 % of the time would be doing the lighter work, tractor and truck driving, combining,etc, but leaving the heavier stuff alone because men are better suited to it and won't hurt themselves as much as women would.
That's what I base some of my opinion on with women doing extended heavy labor like has been depicted by Ghaz and others.
Sorry, I didn't really mean to pick on you so directly, I was just trying to point out that being an expert soldier, does not make someone an expert on women. So when we ask those who have served for expert testimony, they can tell us that it is extremely hard, and we aught to believe them because they know first hand it is hard, but when they tell us it is too hard for any woman, we aught not to believe them because they do not know all women.
I would say that your experiences (despite being anecdotal) are probably dead on. Women aren't generally as strong and physical as men. We all knew that, and the test the OP linked showed it in no uncertain terms. But it is still a generalization, which is why it is wrong, because there will be individual women who are incredibly strong and fast and robust, like the women we see competing at the Olympics. I was on my school athletics team, but there are still girls at the Olympics who can shave a second off my best 100m time. A system that would allow an exceptional woman to be passed up for a man, just because he's a man, is sexist. If a woman is able to do the job, and she wants to do the job, then she should not be denied the opportunity based on stereotypes and generalizations.
No offense was ever taken. You asked a valid question, and I thought the experiences I had and things I witnessed growing up in the middle of farm country might apply as far as the physical ability of females to endure heavy labor over a period of time. There are definitely combat roles women can fill, but I don't believe anything involving sustained extreme load carrying is one of the things they can do with numbers big enough to make it worthwhile.
One nice thing about all that farm work was the fact that myself and a few of my class mates, in the 140-150 lb range, were able to bench 300 plus lbs and do pull-ups for pretty much as long as we felt like doing them. Working on a farm can buff you out like no other!
Regarding the original post, no surprise here. It is a well-documented fact that your average woman is physically weaker than your average man. It is only to be expected that this difference would manifest itself in any activity that has to do with physical exertion.
(and now that I'm reading through the other replies, I realize I am just restating what is obvious to everyone).
Ashiraya wrote: I do not know, it does not say. Why not? We all know that the eastern front was not all that static. This was WW2, not WW1.
The Eastern front was only really mobile in 2 phases, the initial german invasion which swept all the way to Stalingrad/moscow and then the eventual Russian counter attack which pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin. In between that was a fairly long phase of immobile static warfare.
This is completely false, suspiciously sounds like an American reading of the Eastern Front where the Russians weren't the ones who broke Germany's back.
The 'initial phase' as you call it (most people call it Operation Barbarossa), drove to Moscow - Stalingrad wasn't reached until the German summer offensive of 1942, another huge mobile advance across ~1000 miles of frontline. The Russians had already committed a massive counterattack over the winter of '41-'42 with fresh troops from Siberia, they didn't wait around for a single push to Berlin as your post suggests. Operation Bagration (July - August 1944) involved well over a million Russian soldiers and thousands of armoured vehicles in a huge mechanised push to destroy Army Group Centre, and is a single example of a Russian offensive, of which there were many. Bagration alone dwarfs the entire Normandy invasion.
You are however correct in your assertion that women weren't often utilised in front line roles, even though their presence in the Red Army is often championed as "women are just as good at being soldiers" by social justice types.
MarsNZ wrote: You are however correct in your assertion that women weren't often utilised in front line roles, even though their presence in the Red Army is often championed as "women are just as good at being soldiers" by social justice types.
Obviously they were not. Russia has never really been a leading star in feminism, even if some times were different than others.
That said, there is data that shows that women are often superior in discipline, motivation and marksmanship, which is actually not irrelevant (see the IDF page linked and discussed earlier), and while you will inevitably now tell me that it does not compensate for their reduced ability to lug the oversized US soldier package all over the place, it is still a thing.
Ultimately, how this will end is up to neither you nor me. I am neither the big boss of the US military, nor the one who plans their budget. If it will fit in the allegedly grotesque prices of keeping female marines, then it will. All I can do is to assert that I hope it does, anyway.
Ashiraya wrote: Anyway, I trust the armed forces to make a well-reasoned decision based on the data and situations rather than external political pressure from equality groups or the gleeful men's rights activists.
I shall find it most interesting to see the result.
Spoiler:
Also, can we stop with the SJW accusations? It's the equivalent of me labeling you guys 'war pigs' at every opportunity, or similar. It's not very nice.
On the one hand, I think we need to be very wary about listening to soldiers and accepting what they say as automatically valid. They have knowledge, but that knowledge will be filtered through their own personal bias and while we must respect their experience, we can't just accept their statements blindly, but view them in the context of what other information we have. If we just followed what soldiers said about how the armed forces must be run then the army would still be segregated, homosexuality wouldn't have even reached DADT let alone equality, and the M-14 would be the preferred weapon because you gotta have a bigger bullet, dammit.
But on the other hand, the higher levels of stress fractures suffered by women through the testing seems quite telling. It shows there are women who have the will and the determination to make the grade, but it puts their bodies at a level of performance that too many just sustain even over a reasonably short period of time. It isn't viable to have an army where a whole group of soldiers is regularly out of action because they have to put their bodies through excessive strain just to meet the standard requirements.
Ashiraya wrote: Do we have some conclusive studies showing the long-term effects of women doing more physical jobs in the military?
I'd be very interested in seeing some numbers for the effects in the long run, rather than one-off tests or anecdotal observations.
Did you bother to read the BCT study I linked to? In that BCT females had about the same percentage of muscular skeletal injuries as men. And none of the females were infantry, they were all support MOS troops and did not do the patrolling the infantry did. That was over a 15 month deployment. The study also mentions females in general suffer those injuries at a higher rate than their male counterparts (when you take a larger sampling of males which includes a lot more support units than are organic to a BCT).
And again, in previous threads about this topic, I linked to other studies, not all done by the US, that show the same thing. This is why this study is not a surprise. Heck, these types of injuries affected the ladies who tried out for Ranger school and the handful that made it in. It has also been noted at USMC and Army basic training. This is not a new thing.
EDIT:
the authors emphasize that, anatomically and physiologically, women are not the same as men; lower extremity biomechanical dif- ferences between men and women may account for gender differences in training injury rates. Women have increased pelvic width, forefoot pronation, heel valgus angulation, pes planus, external tibial torsion, and femoral anteversion. Additionally, because of the estrogen influence, women have less lean body mass and greater ligamentous laxity. the combination of anatomy and physiology appears to predispose women to a higher risk of pelvic stress fracture and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. the diagnosis of pelvic stress fracture has been reported as 1 in 367 female recruits, compared with 1 in 40,000 male recruits, and rates of ACL ruptures for female athletes range from 2.4 to 9.7 times higher than in male athletes.
Ninety-nine female recruits, 36 male recruits, and 55 controls participated. Although 31% of the controls reported regular preinduction sports participation, less than 25% of both male and female recruits did. Stress fractures incidence was 0% among males and controls but 12% among female recruits (P = 0.03). The mean body mass index of female recruits with stress fractures was 19.2 +/- 2.6 versus 22.5 +/- 3.3 kg x m of female recruits without stress fractures (P = 0.02, odds ratio = 1.397, 95% confidence interval = 1.065-1.833). No statistically significant difference was found between female and male military trainees in the incidence of other overuse injuries, but there was a statistical trend (P = 0.07) for more back pain among females
The cross-gender (F/M) odds ratio for discharges because of overuse injury rose from 4.0 (95% CI 2.8 to 5.7) under the gender-fair system to 7.5 (5.8 to 9.7) under the gender-free system (P=0.001). Despite reducing the number of women selected, the gender-free policy led to higher losses from overuse injuries.
This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits, and highlights the conflict between health and safety legislation and equal opportunities legislation.
Results: Women had 2.5 times the rate of injuries as men and 3.9 times the rate of injuries resulting in hospitalization. Women had significantly more stress fractures and stress reactions than men. The median number of days excused from physical activities for women's injuries was significantly higher than that from men's injuries. Pretraining conditioning, measured by performance on a 2-mile (3.2-km) run, accounted for approximately half the difference in rates of injuries between men and women; differences in height among men and women did not account for differences in injury rates.
Design: Ten mixed gender batteries, including 375 male recruits and 138 female recruits, carried out basic training in the Israeli anti-aircraft corps between November 1999 and January 2003. Each battery was monitored prospectively for 10 weeks of a basic training course. During that time, recruits who were suspected of having an overuse injury went through a protocol that included an orthopedic specialist physical examination followed by a radionuclide technetium bone scan, which was assessed by consultant nuclear medicine experts. The assessment included the anatomic site and the severity of the fractures, labeled as either high severity or low severity. Results: Stress fractures were significantly more common among female recruits than among male recruits. A total of 42 male (11.2%) and 33 female (23.91%) recruits had positive bone scans for stress fractures (female:male relative ratio, 2.13;p
ABSTRACT The incidence of recruit injuries during basic training in the Irish Army is, to date undocumented. In this retrospective cohort study, the medical records of 415 recruits are examined. The lower limb predominated as the anatomical site of the majority of injuries. The overall incidence of male 'first time' injuries was 56.96 per 1000 man-week training. The corresponding female figure was 99.26. Female recruits lost an average of 8.2 days per injury, while the male figure was 5.69 days. The injured female recruit was also more likely to sustain a further injury than her male colleague. Risk factors and possible prevention strategies are discussed.
After BT, gender differences narrowed by approximately 4% in all tests except upper body strength. Although fitness improvement after BT was marginally higher in females than males, resulting in a slight narrowing of the gender differences, a significant gender gap in physical fitness still exists after BT.
Many civilian fitness activities (e.g., walking and jogging) have corollaries in military physical training (e.g., marching and running). The incidence of injury and related intrinsic risk factors for these activities have been more thoroughly studied in military populations than in civilians. Because physical fitness is required for military readiness, recruits undergo a vigorous basic training (BT) course, and substantial research has been devoted to methods of enhancing fitness and understanding the causes of training-related injuries. Studies from the U.S. Army 8-week BT have documented cumulative injury rates from 42% to 67% among women during the course of training (19,20,30). Of women in the U.S. Air Force, 33% incurred an injury during the 6-week BT (20). Similarly, 22% of women in the U.S. Navy sustained an injury during the 9-week BT, and 49% of women in the U.S. Marine Corps were injured during the 11-week BT (20). The range of injury incidence (22%-67%) among women in the different services and over time might be explained by differences in the duration and intensity of BT.
Again, no one is making this stuff up. It is an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Guess it is a moot point.
SECNAV Mabus wrote:"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
SECNAV Mabus wrote:
"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
Because party politics are more important then combat efficiency or defense spending. Mabus for PRESIDENT!..of SJWs
SECNAV Mabus wrote:
"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
Because party politics are more important then combat efficiency or defense spending. Mabus for PRESIDENT!..of SJWs
You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too".
SECNAV Mabus wrote:
"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
Because party politics are more important then combat efficiency or defense spending. Mabus for PRESIDENT!..of SJWs
You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too".
go spend 5 minutes looking into his decisions since he was made SECNAV and then come back to me and tell me he isn't more concerned with party politics and social justice then with LEADING THE NAVY.
and btw your comment "You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition" your identifying someones position and stance based on their age, race and gender, so in one go your a racist and a sexist and whatever the term for age discrimination is
SECNAV Mabus wrote:
"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
Because party politics are more important then combat efficiency or defense spending. Mabus for PRESIDENT!..of SJWs
You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too".
go spend 5 minutes looking into his decisions since he was made SECNAV and then come back to me and tell me he isn't more concerned with party politics and social justice then with LEADING THE NAVY.
I'm talking about your incessant use of the term "SJW". Making choices based on party politics with an eye towards equality does not make one a "Social Justice Warrior" at least not without politics and policies far more radical than these ones.
and btw your comment "You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition" your identifying someones position and stance based on their age, race and gender, so in one go your a racist and a sexist and whatever the term for age discrimination is
It doesn't matter what his position is. His mere existence is what's in opposition. "Rich white guys in positions of power" are a thing we should have less of from a SJW perspective.
SECNAV Mabus wrote:"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
The creation of job entry standards would keep the Marine Corps from losing any of its strength or lethality on the battlefield, Mabus said. He also asserted that a force including women would be a stronger force, because it was more diverse.
It would certainly be interesting to see the data that proves the Secretary of the Navy's claim that being gender "diverse" makes combat units more effective. I've yet to see a single study that conclusively proves that "diversity" has a tangible impact on personal performance in any field. They certainly don't exist in regards to public education.
It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.
Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.
That's also when you get the Soviets and Germans making use of child soldiers, right?
It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.
Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.
That's also when you get the Soviets and Germans making use of child soldiers, right?
Why not? If the initial argument is, "Well, when things get serious, we put women in the field!" the counter-argument of, "Yes, but we also put 13 year-olds in the field along with them," is perfectly valid.
SECNAV Mabus wrote:"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."
Why not? If the initial argument is, "Well, when things get serious, we put women in the field!" the counter-argument of, "Yes, but we also put 13 year-olds in the field along with them," is perfectly valid.
It really isn't. This argument is on par with
"Wow, I'd really like some sweets right now. When you get serious about sweets, you get Ice Cream"
"You know who else like Ice Cream, HITLER! That means you're a nazi, and your ideas are nazi ideas.".
The fact that you were doing A, B & C under conditions X, where thing C is bad does not have any implications about the validity of things A or B unless A or B are explicitly reliant on C. That is to say if there are some conditions for which female soldiers worked and also child soldiers were used,child soldiers being a bad idea says nothing about the use of women.
Your argument doesn't even have the faintest glimmer of logical validity. It's wholly and entirely flim-flam.
EDIT Just to be clear, borrowing the diagram from wikipedia
A: The set of conditions under which to use child soldiers were being used in the conflict.
C: The set of all bad ideas.
B: The set of conditions under which to use female soldiers in combat.
Why not? If the initial argument is, "Well, when things get serious, we put women in the field!" the counter-argument of, "Yes, but we also put 13 year-olds in the field along with them," is perfectly valid.
It really isn't. This argument is on par with
"Wow, I'd really like some sweets right now. When you get serious about sweets, you get Ice Cream"
"You know who else like Ice Cream, HITLER! That means you're a nazi, and your ideas are nazi ideas.".
The fact that you were doing A, B & C under conditions X, where thing C is bad does not have any implications about the validity of things A or B unless A or B are explicitly reliant on C. That is to say if there are some conditions for which female soldiers worked and also child soldiers were used,child soldiers being a bad idea says nothing about the use of women.
Your argument doesn't even have the faintest glimmer of logical validity. It's wholly and entirely flim-flam.
EDIT Just to be clear, borrowing the diagram from wikipedia
A: The set of conditions under which to use child soldiers were being used in the conflict.
C: The set of all bad ideas.
B: The set of conditions under which to use female soldiers in combat.
it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.
It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.
Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.
That's also when you get the Soviets and Germans making use of child soldiers, right?
I did not know the child soldiers made excellent snipers.
it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.
You can't counter someone pointing out that an argument uses bad reasoning by buckling down and typing even sillier non-arguments but now with CAPS.
it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.
You can't counter someone pointing out that an argument uses bad reasoning by buckling down and typing even sillier non-arguments but now with CAPS.
well the argument was that "woman served on the Russian front and did well" and then he replied with children did the same thing. So if the argument for letting woman into the infantry is that they served well in WWII as snipers in static positions and without having to do actual soldiering then it makes complete sense to say that Children who also served well in WWII on the Russian front should be afforded the same opportunity.
it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.
You can't counter someone pointing out that an argument uses bad reasoning by buckling down and typing even sillier non-arguments but now with CAPS.
Chongra, you have nothing that really backs your position. You throw out blanket statements then put out warm feel goods about something that is being forced on the military that will make it less effective and more than likely get people killed or captured.
Just to be clear on my position, I am not altogether against women in the military in combat positions. Just in areas that require physical strength and endurance, such as combat infantry or artillery.
it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.
You can't counter someone pointing out that an argument uses bad reasoning by buckling down and typing even sillier non-arguments but now with CAPS.
Chongra, you have nothing that really backs your position. You throw out blanket statements then put out warm feel goods about something that is being forced on the military that will make it less effective and more than likely get people killed or captured.
Just to be clear on my position, I am not altogether against women in the military in combat positions. Just in areas that require physical strength and endurance, such as combat infantry or artillery.
What is my position that has no backing exactly? In my last posts I've pointing how Seaward & Ghazkull are using arguments don't follow, they're posting so much noise. Seawards post was poor reasoning which was easy to show
Earlier my postion was as follows:
I an expressed an opinion that can be summed as: When the government makes or holds policies they should avoid any that restrict anyone on the basis of class, save where said policy can be conclusively shown to have no viable non-restricting alternatives.
I do not need to back this up really, as it's an opinion. A subjective statement that reflects my values.
I then went on to assert that a single study with a few hundred people did not constitute sufficiently rigorous proof that there are no viable non-restricting alternatives to a policy of "No women in combat infantry".
This is also true. The standard proof I set was quite high, the study we were questioning didn't meet it, as was better dicussed by posters after me. If you held a lower standard of proof the study may be sufficient but that has little to do with my position.
Really I've taken no hard line stance here. However I might point out that the quality of my argument previously has no bearing on the quality of the posts we've been discussing recently. Like I could have posted nonsense about how we should do it because the gorillas in the sky say we should, that doesn't make the child soldiers argument any less bunk.
How can you say that positions that restrict class are bad when you, yourself made a blanket statement condemning rich, old white men?
Where does your position really lay?
There have been other studies put forward besides just the one test that back the points made by those who are against women in combat along the lines of physical ability to withstand the stresses of particular roles.
Relapse wrote: How can you say that positions that restrict class are bad when you, yourself made a blanket statement condemning rich, old white men?
I didn't. I said that is the position of many if not most of those would self identify as "Social Justice Warriors", and that therefore Ghazkuuls positioning of Mabus as the "President of "SJW"s is an inflammatory abuse of the term. I don't identify as a SJW, and don't have anything against rich old white guys. Are you even reading my posts?
Simply describing a position that some people hold, does not mean it is my position. I could tell you all about the positions of Stalin, and how someone might be misusing the term "Stalinist". That doesn't meant I want to move anybody to the gulag, man.
There have been other studies put forward besides just the one test that back the points made by those who are against women in combat along the lines of physical ability to withstand the stresses of particular roles.
Right and I've not addressed those either way, as they entered the thread after I had taken my position on the originally cited study. Other posters are addressing them and I don't feel the need to pile on at this point in time, when there are far, far more egregious abuses of the discussion taking place.
EDIT: To be clear, this is not a comparison or equivalence of SJWs to Stalin. In case anyone wanted to follow that line of non-reasoning next.
CptJake wrote: What other posters have addressed all the studies I posted links to? I must have missed that.
Dogma and Ashiraya have been engaging you with regards to your links. NuggzTheNinja has also been engaging from a position that supports yours. If you mean your most recent post there is by my count 7 links in that post, all lengthy, some of which seem to behind paywalls. Considering the volume of studies in that post, the difficulties in accessing all the information none of the cited posters have had sufficient activity in this thread after your post for me to think they've had sufficient time to absorb, consider and respond to them as a collective.
CptJake wrote: What other posters have addressed all the studies I posted links to? I must have missed that.
Dogma and Ashiraya have been engaging you with regards to your links. NuggzTheNinja has also been engaging from a position that supports yours. If you mean your most recent post there is by my count 7 links in that post, all lengthy, some of which seem to behind paywalls. Considering the volume of studies in that post, the difficulties in accessing all the information none of the cited posters have had sufficient activity in this thread after your post for me to think they've had sufficient time to absorb, consider and respond to them as a collective.
Ashiraya has not given a halfway decent fact or data based analysis, and has posted feelings and links to Wiki showing other nations have female soldiers, but then dodged the questions about those nations and their soldiers. She has not commented on any of the studies I linked to the last couple of days that I have seen. Dogma picked at the main study and my comments on it, and his picking was based on feelings and anecdotal evidence about his experience training/working with trainers.
Relapse wrote: How can you say that positions that restrict class are bad when you, yourself made a blanket statement condemning rich, old white men?
I didn't. I said that is the position of many if not most of those would self identify as "Social Justice Warriors", and that therefore Ghazkuuls positioning of Mabus as the "President of "SJW"s is an inflammatory abuse of the term. I don't identify as a SJW, and don't have anything against rich old white guys. Are you even reading my posts?
Simply describing a position that some people hold, does not mean it is my position. I could tell you all about the positions of Stalin, and how someone might be misusing the term "Stalinist". That doesn't meant I want to move anybody to the gulag, man.
There have been other studies put forward besides just the one test that back the points made by those who are against women in combat along the lines of physical ability to withstand the stresses of particular roles.
Right and I've not addressed those either way, as they entered the thread after I had taken my position on the originally cited study. Other posters are addressing them and I don't feel the need to pile on at this point in time, when there are far, far more egregious abuses of the discussion taking place.
EDIT: To be clear, this is not a comparison or equivalence of SJWs to Stalin. In case anyone wanted to follow that line of non-reasoning next.
Your blanket statement about rich old white guys in positions of power:
"You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too"."
Which tells me that, in your world, rich old guys of another color in positions of power get a free pass.
You seem pretty dismissive of experiences other militaristic have had in which they match the person's ability to the job. You are also disregarding the ROE in finding those few women that could possibly hack it in a front line infantry unit, diverting crucial funds away from more productive investments in a time when military cut backs are happening so the warm fuzzies can be had.
Your blanket statement about rich old white guys in positions of power:
"You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too"."
OK. We're going to have break this down line by line for you, because obviously something about the langauge I used isn't clicking for you. Sorry about that.
EDIT: SJW in the context of this post and the one we're discussing here is "People who would openly self-Identify as a Social Justice Warrior"
"You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior".
This line describes a fact about him "rich old white, in power" and makes the claim that SJWs by definition oppose people with that set of traits. This strictly on SJWs. It's a claim about why they would see him as objectionable. I don't say anything about my opinion of him, I just lay out why others wouldn't think of him as their president.
He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy.
Here I'm really just clarifying the previous line, I'll admit with a bit of dramatic flair. It's describing why SJWs would find rich, old white guys objectionable: He embodies what they define as "The patriarchy". Now the SJW definition of the "The Patriarchy" is this ponderously huge thing, sometimes inconsistent thing and we don't need to get into it here. However again I'm not expressing opinions about the man or his class I'm outlining that others (SJWS) do hold such opinions.
I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term.
Here I'm saying that this post isn't meant to address the issue itself, I'm putting Mabus' positions aside for the moment to address the way Ghazkuul is framing things. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, and I'm not saying anything about his motivations. It's simply a request to stop using the term "SJW".
It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too"
Here, I'm making an assertion on what "SJW" doesn't meant. I'm describing how I perceive Ghazkuul has being using it, as basically anyone disagree with him. I then go on to say the term applies to people that hold certain beliefs, and they're mostly more radical than the ones Mabus is endorsing.
You can see I'm not making any blanket statements about old white dudes.
How was that backpedaling? Backpedaling would be if I had changed my position and/or the content of the post. I'm quoting the exact text you cited unmodified and describing what it means because you insist on misinterpreting it. This is clarification, clarification is not backpedaling.
Let's just agree to disagree, leave it and get back to conversation about the military.
How would you justify the low ROE trying to find the very few women to fit a front line infantry role in a time of huge cutbacks? Marines are always left sucking the hind tit with allotments and in many cases are left using old equipment because they can't afford better.
Relapse wrote: Let's just agree to disagree, leave it and get back to conversation about the military.
How would you justify the low ROE trying to find the very few women to fit a front line infantry role in a time of huge cutbacks? Marines are always left sucking the hind tit with allotments and in many cases are left using old equipment because they can't afford better.
How do the marines currently screen recruits? I've seen it pop up a couple of times that there is a surplus of applicants for the military, so what sort of process do they go through, in order to be selected? (Specifically, before they go through the months of training)
How do the marines currently screen recruits? I've seen it pop up a couple of times that there is a surplus of applicants for the military, so what sort of process do they go through, in order to be selected? (Specifically, before they go through the months of training)
The Marines, and all the services, have a set of requirements you must meet to enlist.
You need to meet certain hight weight/body fat standards
You need to be able to pass a physical and an initial strength test (I don't think all services have a formal IST equivalent, but know at least Army recruiters will not send you to the MEPS unless you meet some basic standards) http://www.marines.com/becoming-a-marine/how-to-prepare (note how the requirements are based on gender...)
You need to prove you are a permanent resident or citizen
Relapse wrote: Let's just agree to disagree, leave it and get back to conversation about the military.
How would you justify the low ROE trying to find the very few women to fit a front line infantry role in a time of huge cutbacks? Marines are always left sucking the hind tit with allotments and in many cases are left using old equipment because they can't afford better.
How do the marines currently screen recruits? I've seen it pop up a couple of times that there is a surplus of applicants for the military, so what sort of process do they go through, in order to be selected? (Specifically, before they go through the months of training)
I was just a reservist in the Marines, but what I went through back in the day involved what every Marine goes through. I started by taking a written aptitude test, followed by a physical screening to make sure I wasn't going to die anytime soon. Once I got to boot camp, I spent a week in a receiving barracks taking more written tests which helped determine which MOS I qualified for(I was already going to an infantry unit, so it didn't really affect me, but a guy in my training platoon who signed a contract for aviation electronics didn't do so well and got field radioman instead).
Boot camp itself was physically a breeze, because I did heavy labor most of my life. I packed sheet rock for 9 months to just before my enlistment, running up and down stairs hauling 4 eight foot sheets at a time, getting some insane leg muscles, along with carrying ability and balance.
Physically, along with getting pitted, we had what was called "The Daily Dozen", which included pull ups, crunches, running, and other exerisises. The part that got a lot of recruits was at the rifle range where we were pitted daily, and we also had those with problems during the field week.
By the time boot camp was over, my platoon had lost, either by people being let go or set back in training, about 25%. Infantry school saw about another 5% gone.
CptJake wrote: And again, in previous threads about this topic, I linked to other studies, not all done by the US, that show the same thing. This is why this study is not a surprise. Heck, these types of injuries affected the ladies who tried out for Ranger school and the handful that made it in. It has also been noted at USMC and Army basic training. This is not a new thing.
I just want to thank CptJake for those links; there is some really interesting stuff in there. In particular, they really do some of the heavy lifting (no pun intended) in talking about why the different rates occur, and controlling (to a degree) for capability (my primary complaint with the study in the OP).
The way several of them talk in their conclusion about target training, streaming and testing, does remind me that if we can isolate certain problems specifically to gender, then simply 'bannin the wimins' is not the only option available or worth exploring.
CptJake wrote: What other posters have addressed all the studies I posted links to? I must have missed that.
Dogma and Ashiraya have been engaging you with regards to your links. NuggzTheNinja has also been engaging from a position that supports yours. If you mean your most recent post there is by my count 7 links in that post, all lengthy, some of which seem to behind paywalls. Considering the volume of studies in that post, the difficulties in accessing all the information none of the cited posters have had sufficient activity in this thread after your post for me to think they've had sufficient time to absorb, consider and respond to them as a collective.
Ashiraya has not given a halfway decent fact or data based analysis, and has posted feelings and links to Wiki showing other nations have female soldiers, but then dodged the questions about those nations and their soldiers. She has not commented on any of the studies I linked to the last couple of days that I have seen.
I did not check your link the first time/s because my browser gave me a server error there. I assumed it to be temporary and waited, but it didn't let up. Either way it's irrelevant now.
When you posted the big chunk of quotes later on, I saw no need to comment, as there were really no news there. Women get injuried more on average than men in harder tasks. This has not been disputed, to my knowledge. The question is whether they should be permitted despite the risks - which is something I continue to believe that they should, but of course is neither your decision nor mine.
Hell, if you're so worried that women failing in battle is going to get men killed, then let the women be segregated into their own units/companies/whateverisdeemedsuitable for all I care, so all they get killed is each other. It's still better than a blanket ban.
feelings
So, what are those alleged 'feelings' I have posted?
The 'dodged questions' was because I could find no more good data either way on these topics, and I wouldn't want to continue on describing them without it. It doesn't really matter though, as I was only seeking to give examples of them being used, not to exactly which extent.
CptJake wrote: And again, in previous threads about this topic, I linked to other studies, not all done by the US, that show the same thing. This is why this study is not a surprise. Heck, these types of injuries affected the ladies who tried out for Ranger school and the handful that made it in. It has also been noted at USMC and Army basic training. This is not a new thing.
I just want to thank CptJake for those links; there is some really interesting stuff in there. In particular, they really do some of the heavy lifting (no pun intended) in talking about why the different rates occur, and controlling (to a degree) for capability (my primary complaint with the study in the OP).
The way several of them talk in their conclusion about target training, streaming and testing, does remind me that if we can isolate certain problems specifically to gender, then simply 'bannin the wimins' is not the only option available or worth exploring.
Oh yeah, definitely agree with this. The links work for me now and the data is interesting.
CptJake wrote: What other posters have addressed all the studies I posted links to? I must have missed that.
Dogma and Ashiraya have been engaging you with regards to your links. NuggzTheNinja has also been engaging from a position that supports yours. If you mean your most recent post there is by my count 7 links in that post, all lengthy, some of which seem to behind paywalls. Considering the volume of studies in that post, the difficulties in accessing all the information none of the cited posters have had sufficient activity in this thread after your post for me to think they've had sufficient time to absorb, consider and respond to them as a collective.
Ashiraya has not given a halfway decent fact or data based analysis, and has posted feelings and links to Wiki showing other nations have female soldiers, but then dodged the questions about those nations and their soldiers. She has not commented on any of the studies I linked to the last couple of days that I have seen.
I did not check your link the first time/s because my browser gave me a server error there. I assumed it to be temporary and waited, but it didn't let up. Either way it's irrelevant now.
When you posted the big chunk of quotes later on, I saw no need to comment, as there were really no news there. Women get injuried more on average than men in harder tasks. This has not been disputed, to my knowledge. The question is whether they should be permitted despite the risks - which is something I continue to believe that they should, but of course is neither your decision nor mine.
Hell, if you're so worried that women failing in battle is going to get men killed, then let the women be segregated into their own units/companies/whateverisdeemedsuitable for all I care, so all they get killed is each other. It's still better than a blanket ban.
feelings
So, what are those alleged 'feelings' I have posted?
The 'dodged questions' was because I could find no more good data either way on these topics, and I wouldn't want to continue on describing them without it. It doesn't really matter though, as I was only seeking to give examples of them being used, not to exactly which extent.
CptJake wrote: And again, in previous threads about this topic, I linked to other studies, not all done by the US, that show the same thing. This is why this study is not a surprise. Heck, these types of injuries affected the ladies who tried out for Ranger school and the handful that made it in. It has also been noted at USMC and Army basic training. This is not a new thing.
I just want to thank CptJake for those links; there is some really interesting stuff in there. In particular, they really do some of the heavy lifting (no pun intended) in talking about why the different rates occur, and controlling (to a degree) for capability (my primary complaint with the study in the OP).
The way several of them talk in their conclusion about target training, streaming and testing, does remind me that if we can isolate certain problems specifically to gender, then simply 'bannin the wimins' is not the only option available or worth exploring.
Oh yeah, definitely agree with this. The links work for me now and the data is interesting.
Because ash, if they created a unit of just females then it would be significantly less effective then a Male unit which would mean that they could not be trusted to do the job assigned to them and would have to either send more female marines/soldiers then males would have to send or they would simply have to be escorted. Either way it ties up more resources then needed if they just allowed men.
Israel has a predominantly Female infantry unit and as stated above, they are a mounted unit that guards the border with Egypt which is considered the safest of Israel's borders now. And from what was also posted it sounds like its the official SLL unit for the IDF. (SLL = Sick, Lame, Lazy).
Im just curious though why you think its worth it for females to get hurt at a higher rate when they don't have to. You realize that all injuries sustained while active duty have to be paid for by the government right? For instance, im about to get more surgery on my ankle to get it fixed again and the VA is paying for all of it. Im also going to be rated at around 60% disabled which means I'll get a nice check every month from the VA because the Marines Fethed up my ankle, back and some other issues. Factor in how many more females would be hurt compared to males and your increasing the costs of the VA by a significant amount. (females are injured 6 times as often as males) Furthermore factor in those injuries being HIP injuries which are incredibly hard to get over completely.
Ghaz, shouldn't you be commending them on their courage if they wish to fight on the front despite being so much more likely to suffer great injury than men are?
Hell, that may be a fairly significant factor in why so many choose not to, rather than any natural disposition.
How effective the female soldier and/or unit would be largely depends on what it does. I could see them working well as snipers, as data from Israel suggests women often display superior marksmanship.
Whether it is 'worth it' as you say, or not, is something that I think should be up to them.
Ashiraya wrote: Ghaz, shouldn't you be commending them on their courage if they wish to fight on the front despite being so much more likely to suffer great injury than men are?
Hell, that may be a fairly significant factor in why so many choose not to, rather than any natural disposition.
How effective the female soldier and/or unit would be largely depends on what it does. I could see them working well as snipers, as data from Israel suggests women often display superior marksmanship.
Whether it is 'worth it' as you say, or not, is something that I think should be up to them.
Is it really worth it , though, Ash, if it results in unnecessary casualties, failed missions, and resources that could be more efficiently used being wasted? I agree their courage should be honored, but if they would be of far better use in a combat support position, it is also an honor.
It's not as simple as it being just up to them, because they don't operate in a vacuum, but are part of a team that stands or falls depending on skill and ability. If the ability to stand up to intense physical demands isn't there on the level of their male counterparts, the team suffers, not just them.
Ashiraya wrote: Ghaz, shouldn't you be commending them on their courage if they wish to fight on the front despite being so much more likely to suffer great injury than men are?
Hell, that may be a fairly significant factor in why so many choose not to, rather than any natural disposition.
How effective the female soldier and/or unit would be largely depends on what it does. I could see them working well as snipers, as data from Israel suggests women often display superior marksmanship.
Whether it is 'worth it' as you say, or not, is something that I think should be up to them.
Do you have any idea how little marksmanship factors into being a sniper? Most of the skills are stalking and field craft. Anyone can be taught to shoot accurately enough to be a sniper
At a glance, it would appear that it is more physically demanding to become a sniper than it is to become a Ranger.
Thus, I suspect that very, very few individuals would be able to qualify, and I seriously doubt the Marines will drop those requirements in order to get less physically capable snipers that are out of action 6 times as much from injury- regardless of their courage or skill.
It just doesn't stand up to logic. There are many ways to serve the country, and the whole goal of the military is for it to use you in the way that you will most benefit it- not the way that will make you feel the best about it.
