Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Outperform Mixed-Gender Units in 69% of Tasks

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.

**-Shrike-**

The average is irrelevant when we're supposed to be comparing humans that have passed a set of (hopefully identical) standards.

**-Shrike-**

Ghazkuul wrote:
Pendix wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
Yep, it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out that Men are better at fighting in combat then women. But SJW's have to have full equality otherwise the world might implode. I am actually proud that its my service that is putting up the strongest fight against this BS.
*headdesk*

Sorry dude, I live in the real world and have been at the pointy end of the stick. When you have been there you can "headdesk" as much as you like.

Have you ever considered that it's not necessarily SJWs arguing for the potential for women to be included in combat roles? Also, it's not actually obligatory to have combat experience to see that the leap from a well-thought out point to "fething SJWs and their equality BS, I'm not putting up with this!" is a very silly route to take.

**-Shrike-**

Ashiraya wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
except that Marines don't operate by the minimums as I have pointed out before. If you got under a 1st class PFT you were failing, thats how Marines work, that is why we are so damned good at what we do. Also you completely ignore the fact that training those handful of woman who want to be infantry would cost significantly more then training a similar number of men. The failure rate is higher, the injury rate is higher and the overall performance level of those who do qualify is lower. So as I said, this is just a warm and fuzzy by SJWs and doesn't take into account actual combat. I dont want the guy/girl next to me to be barely qualified, I want them to excel at what they do.

Nonsense. If passing the tests is not good enough, then you are bad at designing tests. Make a harder test until you're happy serving with someone who passed it.

That is the point of the test to begin with.

If you need to score 60+ to pass, but those who score 65 are not good enough for you because you think only 70+ is good enough, then make the damn test 70+ to pass to begin with instead of telling the 60-69s that you pass except not really lol.

And take the 'fuzzy SJW' passive-aggressive gak elsewhere. If you can't make arguments without being snide against those who disagree, then don't make arguments.

Exactly. If you can show that women who have the same scores as men, accounting for all other factors, are worse for no other reason except being female, then you might have a point. But that's not what you or this study have shown.

**-Shrike-**

Ashiraya wrote:
It is sexist, because you can compensate for injuries suffered by, say, unusually short men (who can pass the tests, and who do serve in your army today) but apparently it's a no-go for even the strongest of women.

Bloody ninja, I was just about to say that!

**-Shrike-**

trexmeyer wrote:
@Ghaz...you do realize you are arguing with a 17 y/o girl with minimal real world experience and NO military experience, right?

Is that important? She's making some valid points, trying to use an ad hominem attack to ignore her argument is a pretty poor way to have a debate. In any case, military experience should not be a prerequisite for having a discussion on a site about plastic models on the possible inclusion of women in an infantry role. If they are held to the same standard as men, then surely they are equally as likely to be able to drag you out whilst under fire, no?
As for the increased injury rate, when you sign up for the military, you know there is a risk of death in any frontline role. If you know the consequences, on your head be it.

**-Shrike-**

Ghazkuul wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Anectodes =\= data.

First hand experience > Fuzzy Warm feelings about equality.

Are we back to this strange argument that only people who've been shot at in a warzone can have any input in this discussion?

For the record, I too would like to see this survey, because I couldn't see anything in the link you posted earlier.

**-Shrike-**

Prestor Jon wrote:
dogma wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
You can have the best LBE in the world, its still not going to help a 130lb female carry 130lbs of gear with her on a 22 mile patrol.

What about 130 pound males? I've known quite a few male, US soldiers who fit that description.

Regardless the idea that US soldiers carry too much weight, in general, is not a new one.

A 130lb man and a 130lb woman, regardless of their respective physical conditions are not biologically the same. At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.

Not true. Shoulder width (dependent on bone structure) will make a difference. I have quite narrow shoulders, so a broad-shouldered woman could easily outperform me at peak physical condition.

**-Shrike-**

CptJake wrote:
dogma wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

At peak physical condition the 130lb man will outperform the 130lb pound woman. Even when they're the same weight, a man will have an easier time carrying a 130lb ruck on a march than a woman.

I'm not certain of that. Women tend to actively develop core and lower body strength more frequently than men, both of these things are critical to carrying a heavy load for long periods of time.

Then why the increased injuries caused by carrying heavy loads over time? Could it be the very real differences in how the female frame is put together? Differences that this alleged more frequent development of core and lower body strength do not adequately compensate for?

Or is it that the men (on average) are simply bigger and heavier? I'm sure the increased injuries statistic didn't take into account the size and weight of the people used.

**-Shrike-**

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.

**-Shrike-**

Prestor Jon wrote:
How many of the above average women who can pass the physical standards to be marine infantry have chosen to enlist and want to be infantry? If it's only a very small number it's not worth shaking up the system just let a few women in. The few women that make it don't increase combat effectiveness and their inherent disadvantages will likely decrease combat effectiveness in various ways.

Your question isn't one that anyone here can answer, so I won't try. Sorry about that.

Ghazkuul wrote:
Prestor it doesnt matter. Shrike is in fact a SJW

Real classy, making assumptions about who I am and what I want.

who doesn't care a lick for how much this will cost

Depends on how you implement any sort of change. How about better screening before sending people to training camps?

how many people die because of it

How many people will die if females are allowed into front-line combat, with the same minimum requirements as men?

just so long as everything is equal and fair.

Well, equality is nice. I'm sure being short is just disadvantageous in the military as being female, yet you allow short people in.

I am not going as far as saying that D-USA is a SJW because I dont think he is, I think he is one of those fellows who think the whole world revolves around stats and figures and studies and thinks that if you haven't had 10-20 studies on something you can't say its true or use it in an argument.

No, I think d-usa disagrees fundamentally with some of the rather interesting claims you've been making in this thread.

Beyond D-USA and his constant harping of Studies, the only people who disagree with barring woman from Infantry are those who have no idea about the subject and think regardless of injury rates, budget costs and military strength that woman should be allowed to do this. So it is about the same as trying to point out to a brick wall that Steel is a stronger construction material then Wood.

EDIT: On AVERAGE steel is a stronger construction material then wood. There you go shrike i saved you the time.

*sigh* Broad brush strokes.

**-Shrike-**

Relapse wrote:
Of those 4% combat positions, I wonder how much load the women are expected to hump.

Probably nowhere near the amount American marines seem to have to carry, given the plethora of articles about how heavy their load is.

(Of course, Israel probably operates slightly differently, given that their military almost exclusively takes part in engagements near home territory, but I don't know to what extent that would affect things.)

**-Shrike-**

Ghazkuul wrote:
1: not making assumptions, making an educated assessment based on your posts and your complete lack of understanding of the opposite side of this argument. So far you haven't conceded anything.

The position you are advocating is that women should not be in combat because they are women and are inherently weaker. I disagree, I think height and shoulder width are a much better basis on which to preclude people from active duty. If that includes a higher proportion of women than men, it doesn't matter.

2:short people are not at a disadvantage to the military. In fact short people have many specific uses in the Infantry. However, they still have to be strong.

A short man and a slightly taller woman are probably equally strong, but you would bar the women from front-line combat.

3:Broad brush strokes huh? your entire argument is based on the fact that a handful of woman would be Average or slightly above average in the infantry. And you thin that they should be given the chance to join the infantry.

Yes. If that is what they want, and they pass all the requirements, why not?

That is a fine thought, except this isn't a college campus or a Corporation, this is front line combat where you are expected to pull your share.

Obviously. If they jump through all of the hoops, what would prevent them from pulling their share?

Several Anecdotes taken from Marines in the study (Male and Female) said they felt females on AVERAGE could not cut it. Many of the females complained of hip problems and one even mentioned that she and her friend were the only ones out of 12 females in their company to not suffer sufficient injuries to be put on light duty for one of the training periods. And that female eventually dropped on request due to injuries.

Wow, anecdotes again. If the average women can't cut it, don't take the average. Institute a better screening process for potential recruits.

Because I disagree with Woman in the Infantry you and your buddies on here have labeled me a sexist.

I'm not sure I have buddies on here, but do show me where I've called you sexist.

So because I don't agree with your point of view I am wrong. Noted.

Again, is that what I actually said?

The worst part about this is that the SecNav is a SJW as well and doesn't care about combat efficiency and cares more for making policy changes to reflect what the President wants for his legacy.

The less you talk about SJWs, the more serious a discussion we'll be able to have.

**-Shrike-**

CptJake wrote:
Females with broad shoulders still have female pelvises. That is the major difference that contributes to many of the injuries. Broad shoulders don't compensate.

Which injuries are those? (Sorry, I'm sure someone mentioned it earlier, but this thread is quite hard to search through by now)

**-Shrike-**

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)