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.
2015/09/11 15:09:18
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
2015/09/11 15:15:43
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/09/11 17:10:06
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
2015/09/11 17:18:43
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/11 17:36:05
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
My opinion on the subject:
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/11 17:42:02
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.
2015/09/11 17:48:52
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/11 17:58:31
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/11 17:53:29
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/11 18:29:18
2015/09/11 18:34:34
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2015/09/11 19:59:20
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/11 20:13:34
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
2015/09/11 20:20:00
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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...
A sample size of 1,010 diverse candidates.
Thank you, drive through.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2015/09/11 20:31:24
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2015/09/11 23:00:12
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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?
Just a little lost as to the point.
2015/09/12 01:13:37
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/09/12 01:22:09
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/12 01:24:18
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/09/12 01:25:20
Subject: Re:Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/12 01:26:01
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/12 01:29:50
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/09/12 01:45:30
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/12 01:45:44
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.
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/09/12 02:06:08
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/12 02:10:09
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/09/12 03:22:31
Subject: Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks
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 come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
