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.

 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.”

Ghazkuul wrote:
which is why the Zhou dynasty was replaced by the Qin dynasty

If I recall, in Records of the Grand Historian, the fall of Wu was directly attributed to the abandonment of Sun Tzu's principals in strategy. So.... no.

Relapse wrote:
“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.”

I suppose my problem with this whole thing is that I've heard many of these arguments before. That they can't do it. They don't have enough stamina. Morale would suffer. That the men would not put up with it, that all they are good for is truck drivers, potato peelers, camp guards and ditch diggers.

Then, one snowy Saturday in the Ardennes, it didn't matter how black they were.

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

 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.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 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.

This is an excellent point

 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.

 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?

Relapse wrote:

 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?

"Unaccounted"

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 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?

"Unaccounted"

Whatever.

 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.

Considering that the women that went to Ranger school and Marine IOC both suffered similar disproportionately high injury rates, it's a pretty reasonable assumption that it's still an issue. You could make the argument that we should drop a few more male Marines as well. Of course that's ignoring half the rationale behind why they're considering allowing women in or not (that not enough women make it through while remaining functional and meeting the standards to justify sending women at all).

 Smacks wrote:

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.

Also, you would be absolutely amazed how much of the technology around you came directly from "wasteful" government spending. Today's fighter jet is tomorrow's airliner. Today's missile guidance system is tomorrow's rocket to the moon. Today's gas mask is tomorrow's tissue paper (true story).

Relapse wrote:

 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?

No they don't. They do waste money on stupid crap because of a Zero Budget system which favors government contracts more then the military.

Anyway, to the point. Training females for infantry would cost a significant initial investment, just for the sake of making most infantry training areas female friendly. Beyond that, the fact that a female marine is 6 times more likely to be injured while attempting to join the infantry means that the initial investment in training is wasted as well. You can argue that this statistic doesn't accurately represent the injury Rate of females who are at a higher level of physical fitness, but I would argue back that you don't know that only females in the upper echelons of physical fitness would attempt to join the infantry. Regardless, it cost about 46,000 to train a Basic Marine back in 07 and thats before you get them to an MOS school which usually costs significantly more due to the specialization required. So on average your looking at each New Marine costing anywhere between 100-200k. Thats just a rough estimate because when you get into specifics, certain MOS's cost significantly more such as my MOS of 2621; My clearance alone cost around 15,000.

And the USMC has the smallest budget of any service. (with the notable exception of the coast guard, but since they fall under Homeland security....meh.)
40.6 billion or roughly 4% of the US Defense budget goes to the Marine Corps. With such a small budget and with such a high deployment tempo, the resources required to train a handful of females for the sake of equality makes zero sense.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Do they really have a trillion unaccounted dollars?

No they don't.

Here is a portion of Donald Rumsfeld's speech (sorry i can't find the full thing, apart from some silly 9/11 conspiracy video). You might not remember this as it was announced on September 10th 2001, and was later overshadowed by "other news":



If we're talking money that is unaccounted for, it's many trillions. How much of that was actually wasted, is anyones guess, since it's unaccounted for. They have also allegedly misplaced 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.

but I would argue back that you don't know that only females in the upper echelons of physical fitness would attempt to join the infantry.

Here in the UK you need to be able to meet certain fitness requirements before you can even sign up for the infantry, which is made clear. For example the parachute regent expects a minimum of 50 press ups-in 2 minutes, and 7 upper body pull ups. I think you also need to weigh at least 60kg. I would hope most women would know before hand whether they can do 50 press ups in 2 mins, and weigh over 60kg, but for the few who don't, I don't see why it would cost upteen millions to test them along side male candidates.

 Smacks wrote:
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.

Wrong. Go back and look at all the studies I posted links to. Many were of female athletes. The difference in types, severity and occurrence rates have to do with (here is the major surprise) women being built differently.

 CptJake wrote:
Wrong.

Now hold on! I wasn't really asserting anything, for me to be wrong about. All I said was that Ghaz's assertion that women are 6x more likely to be injured (which he is throwing about like a fact) has not been established to my satisfaction (or at all, so far as I can see). I have looked through the study, and I didn't see anything specific that supports this, other than a misunderstanding of how averages work.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that women might be more accident prone regardless of fitness. If that is the case then I would happy to agree he is right (or that I am wrong, if you prefer to see it that way). But please could you quote where you are getting this from? Rather than just having to take your word for it.

It was stated in the report that they used above average females for this and average males and the results were still heavily tilted towards the males scoring far better.

I think we would have a lot less issues if we had a simple standard PT scoring system for combat jobs. The UK has the right idea, test before you go. Whats funny about their standard is the US army female standards, the maximum 100 points for female pushups in the 22-26 age range(its lower for 17-21 actually) is 46. The minimum for guys of the same age is 40. I know girls who can beat this, my friend did from a cold start after drinking a lot of beer at a beer festival this past weekend, think she got in the mid 60s.I don't think she could pull off a 25 mile, 8 hour ruck march in full gear with weapon and a light 60 pound ruck though. She is a freak of nature(hot too) but her build and lifestyle is not the most common and she would be in the one in several hundred women who could at least give it a go.

This whole discussion isn't about equal rights. What we are dealing with is politicians wanting to make a name for themselves as being "civil rights" leaders who has an absolute total disregard for the safety and welfare of the military. They do not care how many people get hurt or get killed by this. They don't care that limited slots in infantry units where they need big guys to hump around 240Bs, missile launchers plus ammo up and down mountains and instead they will be replacing some of those slots with females who will have a very hard time doing it raising the hardship on everyone else. In light infantry, the risk of injury is even greater since they have to weigh down light weight paratroopers with extra gear, that includes guys too, and that dramatically increases the chances of injury. I am aware that any female that does this is not going to be a greyhound and will be a ball of muscle(they would have to be) but again, how many millions of dollars and permanent injuries, not to mention reduced effectiveness is it worth. On the bright side, I don't see lines of women around the block clamoring to get into Infantry school either. The fact they haven't passed infantry officers course and they had to bend the rules to get two through ranger school, plus this long term study pretty much puts the writing on the wall. Nothing against them but they don't belong in combat arms.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wrong.

Now hold on! I wasn't really asserting anything, for me to be wrong about. All I said was that Ghaz's assertion that women are 6x more likely to be injured (which he is throwing about like a fact) has not been established to my satisfaction (or at all, so far as I can see). I have looked through the study, and I didn't see anything specific that supports this, other than a misunderstanding of how averages work.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that women might be more accident prone regardless of fitness. If that is the case then I would happy to agree he is right (or that I am wrong, if you prefer to see it that way). But please could you quote where you are getting this from? Rather than just having to take your word for it.

I posted links to several studies in this topic. I'm not going to go back and find them again because I've already done so and read them.

As for 'accident prone', that is not what any of us are saying. Big differences between accidents and injuries. Though you can obviously be injured as the result of an accident, it is not an accident when your body just can't handle bearing heavy loads across long distances/rough terrain.

Col. Dash wrote:
They do not care how many people get hurt or get killed by this.

Well first you would need to establish that people really would get hurt by this. If a man is unfit, that might also result in people getting hurt, so why discriminate?

They don't care that limited slots in infantry units where they need big guys to hump around 240Bs, missile launchers plus ammo up and down mountains and instead they will be replacing some of those slots with females who will have a very hard time doing it raising the hardship on everyone else.

I agree that would be bad, but there might also be women who are good at the job, able to do it, and deserve to be there as much as a man. Not all women are 80 pound weaklings, to suggest they are is kind of sexist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I posted links to several studies in this topic. I'm not going to go back and find them again because I've already done so and read them.

Well I read through, and I can't find what you are talking about. If you aren't willing to back up what you are saying, then excuse me if I don't put too much faith in it.

As for 'accident prone', that is not what any of us are saying. Big differences between accidents and injuries. Though you can obviously be injured as the result of an accident, it is not an accident when your body just can't handle bearing heavy loads across long distances/rough terrain.

A poor choice of words on my part. I understand what you are suggesting though. I would also agree that women have wider hips (again on average) which might be an issue, or for some it might not. Not all women are (surprise surprise) built the same.

'Wider hips' is not the issue, on average or not. The skeletal structure of the pelvis is.


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/45503901_Disease_and_Nonbattle_Injuries_Sustained_by_a_U.S._Army_Brigade_Combat_Team_During_Operation_Iraqi_Freedom

 CptJake wrote:

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.

http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849872

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/

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.

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=518345

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

www.fisher.org.il/VL/Med/127/military medicine.doc

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.

Injuries sustained by recruits during basic training in Irish Army.. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8541166_Injuries_sustained_by_recruits_during_basic_training_in_Irish_Army [accessed Sep 16, 2015].

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8541166_Injuries_sustained_by_recruits_during_basic_training_in_Irish_Army

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.

Differences in physical fitness of male and female recruits in gender-integrated army basic training. - ResearchGate. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23312289_Differences_in_physical_fitness_of_male_and_female_recruits_in_gender-integrated_army_basic_training [accessed Sep 16, 2015].

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4902a3.htm

Again, no one is making this stuff up. It is an issue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And even a modest amount of 'google-ing' is going to find more, though some of the above and more of what google returns will have the full articles behind a pay wall (and I'm not going to cut an paste full articles from behind pay walls for anyone)

You really shouldn't have gone to so much trouble, especially when most of these quotes can be ruled out by the words "on average", women not being as strong on average has already been established. Talking specifically about the top 10th percentile of women that overlapped with the bottom 50th percentile of men in the tests. I do not see how can you draw any conclusions about their rate of injury from the things you have quoted. On the contrary you quoted this:

"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"

Which seems to corroborate the idea that stress fractures are related to size and strength, not gender.

Again, nobody is saying women can't function in combat.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/09/18/female-idf-commander-receives-citation-for-foiling-infiltration-of-terrorists-into-israel/#

A female IDF Company Commander in Carcal (the mixed gender unit) received a citation recently for engaging 23 terrorists attempting to infiltrate from Egypt. Another source stated that they killed 6 and forced the rest to flee. She apparently emptied all of her magazines while administering medical aid, so there's that.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4583184,00.html


Now that said, Carcal is a MOUNTED unit. Usually AFAIK they aren't even wearing body armor, so we're talking maybe 30 lb fighting loads, 40 with armor. That's a far cry from the 80-120 lb loads Combat Infantry guys are expected to carry, and a far cry from the 40-50% bodyweight load I carried in the IDF. Women do a fine job at the combat aspect (breaking things and killing people), but the physical discrepancies can't be ignored.

Yet again, I have to assume your are willfully obtuse.

It isn't just stress fractures, though they are an example and an issue.

Read the studies, not just what I quoted.

 CptJake wrote:
Yet again, I have to assume your are willfully obtuse.

It's called critical thinking. I am willfully obtuse of statements which aren't directly supported by any evidence.

I agree some women are more prone to injuries than some men.
I agree women as a group are more prone to injuries on average, then men are as a group on average.

But you seem to be asserting that all women are more prone to injuries than all men. That's quite a grand claim.

Read the studies, not just what I quoted.

Ergh! That will take ages, and will just be a waste of my time if they don't contain anything that supports your argument. If they do, I feel you would have posted it already? Why should I have to prove your points, for you? I'll think about it, and maybe we can argue more next week.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have made a rough graph based on the overlap that was described from some of the physical tests, to try and illustrate my "question".


We have two bell curves, one for women, one form men. The purple areas are where they overlap. Now, the graph shows clearly what everyone expected, which is that the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women, no contest. And I don't think anyone would question that a man at point A would be stronger, and less prone to injury than a women at point D. In fact I would even be happy to agree that a man at point A would be stronger and less injury prone than all women.

My question though, is what about about a man at point C? He is behind many woman in terms of fitness and endurance etc... You could say he is stronger and less injury prone than a woman at point D, but what about a woman at point B? Can you really show that one of the weakest most unfit men, is still 6x less injury prone than one of the strongest women? That's what is bothering me.

Now if someone could show that, then I think I would be won over, and agree that women shouldn't do the job.

I also wouldn't have a problem if the army said point A is the minimum. Which would rule out all women and most men (including the man at point C).

I think what I do have a problem with is people saying "that man at at point C, he's okay, he can join the army" even though he's quite a low percentile. While the same people say: "that woman at point B, she'll get people killed because she's not as good as a man".

I understand you live in a fairy tale world where everyone is equal and everyone gets the chances that everyone else gets, but here in the real world the law of averages weighs more then warm happy feelings.

If the AVERAGE woman is significantly more prone to be injured while attempting combat arms that means that the AVERAGE number of females injured in the military will drastically climb while at the same time directly impacting combat readiness and unit morale.

You may continue to harp on about this mythological 10% of females who don't suffer from the injuries of other females but so far the facts support the opposite.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I understand you live in a fairy tale world where everyone is equal and everyone gets the chances that everyone else gets, but here in the real world the law of averages weighs more then warm happy feelings.

Well that's mature. It's nothing to do with "warm happy feelings". It's about cold hard facts. If you can't show why person B is worse than person C with facts (rather than implied generalizations and stereotypes), then the facts don't support your argument. That's all there is too it.

If you can present facts that do, then I'd be more than happy to admit you are right and agree with you on this. But you have not done that, instead you offer insults. You have taken one thing that is a fact (women suffer more injuries on average as a group), and you skewed it into something else (all women are more prone to injury than all men). This is a straight up fallacy of composition. Some men are better than some women, absolutely does not prove all men are better than all women. In fact the test results explicitly said that there is an overlap, which means some men (literally half) performed worse than at least one woman.

Now if injuries really are an exception to that, then fair enough, but you have not shown that yet.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If the AVERAGE woman is significantly more prone to be injured while attempting combat arms that means that the AVERAGE number of females injured in the military will drastically climb while at the same time directly impacting combat readiness and unit morale.

Only if the units contain AVERAGE women, which is not what is being suggested. You are creating a strawman where the army is forced to let in 80lbs girls who can't do the job, which I agree is wrong. But you are ignoring that there are ABOVE AVERAGE women, who performed similarly to some men in the physical tests.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
You may continue to harp on about this mythological 10% of females who don't suffer from the injuries of other females but so far the facts support the opposite.

The overlap between the top 10% of women and the bottom 50% of men is not "mythological" it was explicitly spelled out in the test results, that is a fact. Whether or not that overlap also applies to injuries is still unknown, since we were only given the averages and not a break down of how the percentiles overlapped. So what you say is false. "So far" the facts do not support your argument. They don't refute it either. They just aren't there.

 Smacks wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I understand you live in a fairy tale world where everyone is equal and everyone gets the chances that everyone else gets, but here in the real world the law of averages weighs more then warm happy feelings.

Well that's mature. It's nothing to do with "warm happy feelings". It's about cold hard facts. If you can't show why person B is worse than person C with facts (rather than implied generalizations and stereotypes), then the facts don't support your argument. That's all there is too it.

If you can present facts that do, then I'd be more than happy to admit you are right and agree with you on this. But you have not done that, instead you offer insults. You have taken one thing that is a fact (women suffer more injuries on average as a group), and you skewed it into something else (all women are more prone to injury than all men). This is a straight up fallacy of composition. Some men are better than some women, absolutely does not prove all men are better than all women. In fact the test results explicitly said that there is an overlap, which means some men (literally half) performed worse than at least one woman.

Now if injuries really are an exception to that, then fair enough, but you have not shown that yet.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If the AVERAGE woman is significantly more prone to be injured while attempting combat arms that means that the AVERAGE number of females injured in the military will drastically climb while at the same time directly impacting combat readiness and unit morale.

Only if the units contain AVERAGE women, which is not what is being suggested. You are creating a strawman where the army is forced to let in 80lbs girls who can't do the job, which I agree is wrong. But you are ignoring that there are ABOVE AVERAGE women, who performed similarly to some men in the physical tests.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
You may continue to harp on about this mythological 10% of females who don't suffer from the injuries of other females but so far the facts support the opposite.

The overlap between the top 10% of women and the bottom 50% of men is not "mythological" it was explicitly spelled out in the test results, that is a fact. Whether or not that overlap also applies to injuries is still unknown, since we were only given the averages and not a break down of how the percentiles overlapped. So what you say is false. "So far" the facts do not support your argument. They don't refute it either. They just aren't there.

Let me find a way to spell this out for you then because you still haven't managed to grasp what all of us are saying.

If the USMC is forced to let woman into Infantry and other combat MOS's, it won't be only the top 10% of physically fit females who attempt to get into those MOS's, it will be predominantly your AVERAGE female marines. Just like in the infantry now, its not the top 10% of Males who attempt to join. The difference here is that the best 10% of woman, those who were able to cut it and do well in everything were equal to the 50th percentile of males.

So what your going to have is a significantly higher attrition rate for Females attempting to join the Marine Corps, specifically in Combat Arms. On average it takes 3 months for boot camp, 2 months for Infantry training with about a month of transition time (leave, liberty, delay en-route) in between. meaning it takes 6 months to train a basic Marine infantrymen. And thats before they get to their unit where the real training begins. So for every female that attempts to get into Combat Arms and gets hurt to the point where they are either MEDSEP'd, Medically discharged or Medically retired the USMC has wasted 6 months worth of training. The USMC as I showed you above has the smallest budget for a service branch in the US, it is a running joke that if you want supplies, join the Army. Marines make do. What allows Marines to make do is to maximize available resources, having to waste significant investment in time and resources training a handful of woman so that they have the chance to serve in the infantry is not maximizing anything except waste.

Are certain females capable of not only cutting it in the Marine Infantry and not getting hurt in the process? of course, there will be a handful who are amazing Marines who the USMC would benefit from having in their Ranks of combat MOS's. But the benefits do not justify the costs involved.

Let me put it another way, my MOS was highly specialized and rather intense. You were either smart enough or you weren't. You could either grasp the concepts involved or you couldn't. Any Marine who took our course and failed was immediately reviewed by the course instructors and if they honestly felt that he wouldn't be able to pass or do so in a timely manner they shipped his butt off to another MOS that wasn't as complex. To get into my MOS you had to sit through a number of interviews and eventually get an FBI back ground check for a security clearance. These are expensive so the USMC made sure they only let the recruits who they thought could pass the course into the MOS and they still had I believe the 2nd highest attrition rate.

I served with a number of Female Marines and they did just as well as Male marines in every way, except physical fitness and endurance. On our company Rucks, Females were never given the heavy loads (PRC-150s, PRC 152s, M249, Spare Batteries, OEs) for longer then a couple of minutes every hour because they would slow the unit down considerably. We would Ruck maybe 10-15 miles and by the end there would be maybe 4-6 male stragglers who were either TFG or had been drinking to much the night before, and about 8-10 of the Female Marines. After those Rucks, 1-2 Male marines would go to BAS because they had gotten hurt somehow, either dehydration or a twisted ankle, there would usually be 4-6 females who would also go to BAS after rucks for the same problems, or they had shooting pains in their hips (First sign of the END for female marines). Our company had about 100 Marines in it, about 15 were female. Those numbers don't add up.

Again, females deserve equal treatment, pay and respect in everything, Except Combat. Combat has no EO rep who ensures that the enemy treats them the same, or gives them an extra 5 minutes every hour to catch up. If they sense a weakness in the unit they will expose it and cause more casualties to the Marines. It just is not worth it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Let me find a way to spell this out for you then because you still haven't managed to grasp what all of us are saying.

If the USMC is forced to let woman into Infantry and other combat MOS's, it won't be only the top 10% of physically fit females who attempt to get into those MOS's, it will be predominantly your AVERAGE female marines. Just like in the infantry now, its not the top 10% of Males who attempt to join. The difference here is that the best 10% of woman, those who were able to cut it and do well in everything were equal to the 50th percentile of males.

So what your going to have is a significantly higher attrition rate for Females attempting to join the Marine Corps, specifically in Combat Arms. On average it takes 3 months for boot camp, 2 months for Infantry training with about a month of transition time (leave, liberty, delay en-route) in between. meaning it takes 6 months to train a basic Marine infantrymen. And thats before they get to their unit where the real training begins. So for every female that attempts to get into Combat Arms and gets hurt to the point where they are either MEDSEP'd, Medically discharged or Medically retired the USMC has wasted 6 months worth of training. The USMC as I showed you above has the smallest budget for a service branch in the US, it is a running joke that if you want supplies, join the Army. Marines make do. What allows Marines to make do is to maximize available resources, having to waste significant investment in time and resources training a handful of woman so that they have the chance to serve in the infantry is not maximizing anything except waste.

You don't need to spell that out. I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is why you think it would take 6 months of training to filter out women who weren't above average? If you set minimum height and weight restrictions (for both men and women) and had a basic fitness test prior to entry, you could filter out the majority of unsuitable candidates on day 1. And that would work for men too, why waste 6 months of training on a guy who is never going to cut it?

Are certain females capable of not only cutting it in the Marine Infantry and not getting hurt in the process? of course, there will be a handful who are amazing Marines who the USMC would benefit from having in their Ranks of combat MOS's. But the benefits do not justify the costs involved.

Well I'm glad you agree that there would be females who could cut it. I agree with you that the numbers would certainly be small. Regarding cost, I think it's hard to say. Reading through CptJake's links, I noticed that in civilian athletes, it reported that the disparity between men and women when it came to stress fractures was quite small compared to the military. It suggested that it may be a problem with footwear, and that something as simple as boot insoles could close the gap and reduce fracture incidents for both sexes. I also noticed height was a contributing factor in certain stress fractures. Shorter people need to overstep in order to keep up marching, which contributes to hip injuries. Height restrictions could help there. Some small well thought out changes might be all that is needed. Of course, it's the military, so I they would probably find a way to waste money on this, even if it were impossible.

I'm kind of on the fence about this really. On one hand I agree with you that the average woman isn't going to cut it either way. I certainly don't think standards should be lowered to accommodate anyone. So it only effects a small number exceptional individuals. Whether it is "worth it" I can't really tell. It's hard to say how many people it effects and what the actual cost would be, so meh.

I think I'd be happy to continue with the idea that women shouldn't be allowed in combat units (for now). Perhaps some day, if an exceptional woman does really want to join, and is willing to fight her case and show that she can do the job, and doesn't need any special treatment... I could probably get behind that too.

When it comes to this i know that Ghazkuul is correct.

Everyone I have met in the military from mercs to normal says they want someone they can trust to do the job next to them......and if they are lugging a 60 pound pack at a start...i know who I'm choosing.'


The merc i talked to laughed at female soldiers ...maybe that's just part and parcel of operating in africa...I don't know.

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

Look up the Yerkes’ Army Intelligence Tests. The Army, once upon a time, 'proved' that 'average' black was too stupid to be in frontline combat, and their limited mental facilities meant they were only suitable for rear echelon positions where they could be supervised by whites.

The Army then proceeded to disregard all actual combat data, and base their policy on the tests.

So, tell me how it's a gakky comparison again?

Edit:

 Bullockist wrote:
The merc i talked to laughed at female soldiers ...maybe that's just part and parcel of operating in africa...I don't know.

Depends where he (assuming it was a he) was at. A lot of places they just gave women guns and called them soldiers. Needless to say, that doesn't work so well on average.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

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

Look up the Yerkes’ Army Intelligence Tests. The Army, once upon a time, 'proved' that 'average' black was too stupid to be in frontline combat, and their limited mental facilities meant they were only suitable for rear echelon positions where they could be supervised by whites.

The Army then proceeded to disregard all actual combat data, and base their policy on the tests.

So, tell me how it's a gakky comparison again?

It's a poor comparison because they used a faulty set of tests contrary to reality and used it as an excuse to make policy. They ignored reality to make policy to justify banning blacks.

In this case, they did some testing which lines up with pretty much every other study or comparison of male to female athletic performance. There's plenty of evidence out there, plenty of studies, and plenty of sports in which there is a noticeable discrepancy between the performance of male and female athletes. Meanwhile, Mabus, smacks, you, etc are ignoring reality because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs and preconvieved notions, and are trying to make policy based on said lack of understanding of reality because, just like the racists, you have an agenda to push. Your own argument works against you.

 DarkLink wrote:
Meanwhile, Mabus, smacks, you, etc are ignoring reality because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs and preconvieved notions, and are trying to make policy based on said lack of understanding of reality because, just like the racists, you have an agenda to push. Your own argument works against you.

If you think that, then you obviously haven't been reading my posts. I actually spent a long time today going through every one of the studies CptJake posted, I certainly don't lack understanding on the issues. In fact, I believe Ghaz and I are in complete agreement on 95% of the issues.

I don't have an agenda to push, and I'm certainly not ignoring reality. What I am interested in though is people making an informed decision based on a proper understanding of the data, and not a misrepresentation, that is mixed up with personal anecdotal beliefs. Ghaz and I agree that there probably are a small number of women (perhaps very small) that would be able to cut it as combat troops. He thinks the numbers just aren't worth the cost. I don't think there is enough information about costs to make a decision either way.

What that has to do with pushing an agenda or ignoring reality, I don't know. It seems like you just picked a side, and then decided to indiscriminately label everyone who's opinion doesn't align perfectly with you own, as some kind of "liberal crackpot", regardless of what they were actually saying. So that thing you were saying about people ignoring reality because of "preconceived notions": have a look in the mirror.