Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 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.

 Chute82 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 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.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


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.

 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?

 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.

Operation Petticoat, eh?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 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.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

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.

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?

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.

 Ketara wrote:

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 and do it.

Who was trying to appear smart? It just seemed as though people on both sides were voicing concerns and solutions.

 Ketara wrote:

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.

I am celebrated on Dakka for my even handed, well reasoned explanations.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 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?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

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]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Women

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.

 Smacks wrote:

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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

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..

 Smacks wrote:

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!

I guess by reading your reply to Ghaz, Chongra, you are not in the Bernie Sanders camp this coming election.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


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.

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.

 Chongara wrote:

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.

Interesting back peddling..

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.

 -Shrike- wrote:

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.

 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.

A it more on this:


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/07/report-finds-female-marines-cannot-meet-some-standards-for-special-forces/?intcmp=hpbt2

 Hordini wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'm a little leery of it's dismissive approach toward female performance in actual combat in favor of testing results, but..

Part of the reason is, female performance in combat up until now has in many cases not always included many tasks that infantrymen have to be able to do, such as long movements under load. Getting into a firefight while mounted and performing well is great, and no one is taking anything away from that, but it's not the same thing as being able to do long movements under under heavy load, keep from getting hurt, and be ready to fight when you get to where you are going (or en route).

There are a lot of different ways to be "in combat." Pilots can be in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. Truck drivers can be in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. Any combat support or combat service support personnel could end up in combat and the tasks that they have to do are not the same as the infantry. While there will be some skill overlap in all of those situations (such as being able to shoot, for example), just saying that women have been in combat and performed well doesn't mean that women are generally going to perform well in the infantry.

I think a lot of people are vastly underestimating the toll that sustained movements under load take, and how much easier it is for women to get injured while doing it.

To underscore your remarks, from the article:


"While highlighting the achievements of many outstanding female Marines, the report finds that overall elite female troops do not reach the same physical standards as their male counterparts. Smith notes that more than 400 women have received Combat Action Ribbons for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“There is no more compelling evidence that our female Marines have served very capably and courageously in combat and have distinguished themselves in non-linear, extremely complex operating environments,” the report states. “However, none of those rewards reflected a female Marine having to “locate, close with and destroy the enemy” in deliberate offensive combat operations. Rather, these actions were all in response to enemy action in the form of IED strikes, enemy attacks on convoys or bases or attacks on female Marines serving in the Lioness Program or on Female Engagement Teams.”

The report does note that female service members have better overall disciplinary records than men, and highlights that “in a decision-making study that we ran in which all male and integrated groups attempted to solve challenging field problems [that involved] varying levels of both physical and cognitive difficulty… the female integrated teams (with one female and three or four males) performed as well or better than the all-male teams.”

But “there were numerous indications of lower performance levels from combat arms females or female-integrated groups,” the report states.

The Marines report echoes the findings of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

“Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy,” that report stated. “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

However, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told NPR that studies showing women cannot keep up with men in certain areas could be flawed.

“It started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking this is not a good idea and women will never be able to do this,” he said. “When you start out with that mindset you're almost presupposing the outcome.”

One former U.S. Marine told FoxNews.com on condition of anonymity that full integration in all units could hurt morale if it is perceived as being done for political correctness and not merit.

“The Marines are being asked to treat female soldiers as absolute equals – in possibly life-threatening situations – even when every other measure has long ago proven that such physical equality between males and females does not exist,” he said.

Israel, which has long integrated women into its military, has reached similar conclusions regarding the most elite units, according to Lt. Col. Yuval Heled, the Israel Defence Force’s top military physiologist.

“Women in Israel and the U.S. do very good field operations,” Heled said. “But I would say that in the front line, with the potential of engaging in close combat, I would still recommend leaving things as they are.”

 CptJake wrote:
Black troops never had the disparity in upper body strength nor the predisposition to musculature skeletal injuries. It is a gakky comparison.

Agreed. I didn't understand the logic of equating a Black man to a woman in a situation where physical strength could mean the difference between life and death.
Israel has had decades of experience fielding women in combat situations and they wouldn't put them in a situation where strength is a factor. It's silly to ignore the findings and practices of a country whose literal existence hinges on the strength of it's military and how well it functions.

 Smacks wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
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.

This is an excellent point

Apart from "umpteen millions" is hyperbolic nonsense, and it has still not be established that women in the upper percentiles suffered more injuries than the men they outperformed. Women suffered more injuries on average, but they also had more members with low fitness, which could imply injury rate is related to low fitness, and not really anything to do with gender.

Also as aside note, the military wastes so much money on things you wouldn't believe. They have about a trillion dollars that they're just not sure what they spent it on. This kind of thing wouldn't even make a dent.

Do they really have a trillion unaccounted dollars?