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.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
My point was more that the NCO in the spoilered tag was wrong about the existence of light infantry


But, thank you for that. I know the army is constantly changing, and now that I'm out, I'm not really keeping up with what people call themselves

Oh, I got your point. I was just showing folks how prevalent light infantry actually is in the army. We gots a lot of it!

Hehe... Only bigger oxymoron in the military may just be "military intelligence"

I still don't see how it might be the couple in a hundred women who can meet the standards (pitifully inadequate though the minimum standards are) RIGHT to serve in the infantry when it is the DUTY of male Americans over the age of 18 to register for the draft. Yes I know we haven't drafted anyone in quite some time, yet the system is still in place. If all things were truly equal women would have to register for the draft, make up whatever percentage the female demographic equals within the draft class and be funneled to the infantry at the same percentage. Do we really want 50ish% of our infantry being whichever unlucky females get their numbers called?

The whole point is to be equal, right? We're throwing a social experiment into something that really isn't a fun and games fuzzy feeling reality. I wish this study would stop the insanity. But the Secretary of the Navy has already said he sees nothing stopping the full integration of females into Marine combat units. It's a done deal as far as I can see. The proof of how bad an idea this is will (or won't I guess) come the first time it gets actually tried under prolonged combat. Fail or not, it will still never be equality so long as this one young woman gets to choose to do so and the boys in her graduating class are all forced to do so.

#malemarinegruntslivesmatter

 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- wrote:

 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.

Well I haven't put it in those exact words but pretty much thats how it is. you can have your happy warm fuzzy feelings with the rest of the world im fine with that. But the second you put Marines lives in danger for a SJW BS movement I get upset. It wont be your friends dying to prove the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As A side note, I can't think of a single female marine I worked with who thought this was a good idea.

What exactly are you arguing, Ghaz?

You haven't met any female marines who are saying that female marines is a good idea?

That the female Marines he has worked with did not think allowing females to be infantry was a good idea.

Why is it a bad idea?

If nothing else, surely a female marine is better than no marine.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why is it a bad idea?

If nothing else, surely a female marine is better than no marine.

And there are female Marines, just currently none are allowed in the infantry.

As to why it is a bad idea, did you happen to read the article this topic is about?

Obviously. I would not have taken part so much in this debate otherwise.

Have you? It proves little other than what we already knew: men generally are better at soldiering. Why are everyone acting like this is news or somehow difficult to account for?

Adjust the tests accordingly. Design them equally for both genders. Man or woman, if they pass the required test for a role, they are qualified for it.

If you need at least 60 in a test to become a soldier, and men generally score 60-100 where women score 60-80, obviously men's performance will be better. This is not shocking. A man who gets 60 in a strength test will not perform better than a woman who gets 60, though. There's just more men who get higher than 60. And it's not like that matters, because the test only demands 60, and 60 level men are fully accepted. Contrary to popular belief, the article only said that men generally performs better. To reiterate, it does NOT say that a man who gets a 60 in a pullwoundedmate test performs better than a woman who also gets a 60. It just means men are more likely to get even higher (which again, doesn't matter, because you only demanded 60 to begin with, so don't set your standards lower than what you are happy with.)

Obviously that means that more men will pass, just as more men will try to begin with. That is not a problem. Neither is women in the infantry, because there are women around who can and will perform up to par. The matter is just setting the correct standards (which, again, should be equal.)

Anyway, I trust the armed forces to make a well-reasoned decision based on the data and situations rather than external political pressure from equality groups or the gleeful men's rights activists.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Obviously. I would not have taken part so much in this debate otherwise.

Have you? It proves little other than what we already knew: men generally are better at soldiering. Why are everyone acting like this is news or somehow difficult to account for?

Adjust the tests accordingly. Design them equally for both genders. Man or woman, if they pass the required test for a role, they are qualified for it.

If you need at least 60 in a test to become a soldier, and men generally score 60-100 where women score 60-80, obviously men's performance will be better. This is not shocking. A man who gets 60 in a strength test will not perform better than a woman who gets 60, though. There's just more men who get higher than 60. And it's not like that matters, because the test only demands 60, and 60 level men are fully accepted. Contrary to popular belief, the article only said that men generally performs better. To reiterate, it does NOT say that a man who gets a 60 in a pullwoundedmate test performs better than a woman who also gets a 60. It just means men are more likely to get even higher (which again, doesn't matter, because you only demanded 60 to begin with, so don't set your standards lower than what you are happy with.)

Obviously that means that more men will pass, just as more men will try to begin with. That is not a problem. Neither is women in the infantry, because there are women around who can and will perform up to par. The matter is just setting the correct standards (which, again, should be equal.)

Anyway, I trust the armed forces to make a well-reasoned decision based on the data and situations rather than external political pressure from equality groups or the gleeful men's rights activists.

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

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

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

That is the point of the test to begin with.

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

And then don't refuse those who did get 70+ just because they don't have a dick.

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

 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.

 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.

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

1: Im not the one designing the tests, I am just one of those who had to undergo them frequently.

2: im not directing the SJW comments at you as much as the general populace of my country who thinks its a good idea for combat to be about equality and not survival.

3: The test is designed to to show the Minimum required to function. Every individual unit and leader will have different minimums. For instance I had a battlion commander who thought 1st Class PFTs weren't good enough it had to be a 250+ or else you were on remedial. The Corps sets the "official" minimum and then units have the authority to set higher minimums for their Marines. With that said I have never been to any unit or heard of one where anything less then 1st class was considered failing.

I have made several rational points, I have pointed to the massive increase in cost per training cycle, i have pointed to the massive increase in injury rate and I have pointed out how this will negatively effect a units combat readiness, you just choose to gloss over those facts by saying "Spend more money on testing, make the tests easier".

 Ghazkuul wrote:
"Spend more money on testing, make the tests easier".

I have not said this.

High standards or low standards, I couldn't care less as long as the standards are the same for everyone.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 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.

I have never said that nor tried to argue that point except by pointing out injury statistics. But keep trying to paint me as a sexist.

It is sexist, though?

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

If they pass the tests, they are qualified. If you think that's not enough, make harder tests. It really is not more complicated than that.

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

Bloody ninja, I was just about to say that!

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

except that "unusually short males" do not suffer injuries at a higher rate then women. If you can show me a study that says this is so please let me see it. The reason for more injuries in females compared to males is due to how our bodies are built.

The strongest of women can pass the tests and can hack it in combat and all the other nonsense, I have never disputed that, the only thing I keep saying is that for those handful of women to get into infantry the US DoD will have to spend MILLIONS if not BILLIONS more dollars on training women for Combat MOS because of the higher failure rate and higher injury rate. It is not cost effective in the slightest, and even after those handful of women make it, they will be 6 times more likely to suffer an injury and be sidelined from combat anyway.

We ran a recon test for EVERY member of my battalion, male and female. only a couple of females made it through out of the whole battalion, and 2 of them were crippled for the rest of there Marine Careers. 1 was forced out due to injured and 1 was Medsepped.

The alleged dreadful cost increase in testing (which I have yet to see any sign of) is highly unlikely to be anything more than a drop in the ocean. You spent 610 billion dollars on your military in 2013. Adjusting test numbers so that they can reflect the recruit's skills without having to make the assumption that they are male will result in additional expenses, but I strongly doubt those expenses are meaningful in context.

Plus, adjusting the tests so that the results become more accurate is a good thing, regardless of the gender question.

As for the additional injury cost, well, the question of whether it is worth it is down to your leaders to answer. I think it is.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The alleged dreadful cost increase in testing (which I have yet to see any sign of) is highly unlikely to be anything more than a drop in the ocean. You spent 610 billion dollars on your military in 2013. Adjusting test numbers so that they can reflect the recruit's skills without having to make the assumption that they are male will result in additional expenses, but I strongly doubt those expenses are meaningful in context.

Plus, adjusting the tests so that the results become more accurate is a good thing, regardless of the gender question.

USMC budget for 2016 = 24Billion. So......yeah it would be pretty significant.

And it also has fewer women than the entire 610 billion military, so it compensates.

Actually, the study did show higher injury rates for females, even those who scored high on the basic physical tests. It also showed on average they had less endurance then the males when performing many of the same tasks.

One issue is, even the females that meet whatever standard you set, be it a 60, a 70 or whatever, are gonna get hurt more often and worse than their male counterparts over time.

This ends up having the exact opposite effect of what is claimed to be a goal of this whole effort; breaking the 'brass ceiling'. If you invalid out your best females earlier in their careers, less of the good ones make it into senior leadership positions.

Redesigning how promotions are worked and what positions are considered 'key' for further promotion and higher positions would be a much better way of addressing the situation. For example, when BG Richards (female army aviator) became the ADC-M for 1st Cav, it showed you did not need to be armor or infantry to be an effective ADC-M. She has done great and wonderful things as a senior leader and will continue to to do more. Had she gone infantry as a 2LT, the odds are very good she would have been broken enough by the time she was an LTC that she never would have gotten the chance.

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

It's a complete waste of your time and her's tbh. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that at absolute best maybe 10% of the female population has the potential to carry out Combat Arms tasks with the proper training, but it'll be a hell of a lot harder for them than men and probably utterly pointless.

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, the study did show higher injury rates for females, even those who scored high on the basic physical tests. It also showed on average they had less endurance then the males when performing many of the same tasks.

One issue is, even the females that meet whatever standard you set, be it a 60, a 70 or whatever, are gonna get hurt more often and worse than their male counterparts over time.

That is not something they could help. You gave them a test and they passed it. The increased rate of injury is unfortunate, but I doubt it is as disastrous in practice as people are saying.

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, the study did show higher injury rates for females, even those who scored high on the basic physical tests. It also showed on average they had less endurance then the males when performing many of the same tasks.

One issue is, even the females that meet whatever standard you set, be it a 60, a 70 or whatever, are gonna get hurt more often and worse than their male counterparts over time.

well jake according to Ash that doesn't matter. and I will label you a SJW now that you said that btw Ash. If you think its ok for people to suffer debilitating injuries because equality is that important to you, then you are in fact a SJW.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If you think its ok for people to suffer debilitating injuries because equality is that important to you, then you are in fact a SJW.

They knew the risks when they took the job. Going for combat duty means you should be prepared for injury. Is that not obvious?

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

Believe it or not, what someone says is more important than who says it.

But sorry for not belonging to the US soldier circlejerk clique. If I find a male soldier friend who says the exact same things I do, will you take it more seriously then?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If you think its ok for people to suffer debilitating injuries because equality is that important to you, then you are in fact a SJW.

They knew the risks when they took the job. Going for combat duty means you should be prepared for injury. Is that not obvious?

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

Believe it or not, what someone says is more important than who says it.

But sorry for not belonging to the US soldier circlejerk clique. If I find a male soldier friend who says the exact same things I do, will you take it more seriously then?

You have nothing to say that is based in the real world. Sorry.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, the study did show higher injury rates for females, even those who scored high on the basic physical tests. It also showed on average they had less endurance then the males when performing many of the same tasks.

One issue is, even the females that meet whatever standard you set, be it a 60, a 70 or whatever, are gonna get hurt more often and worse than their male counterparts over time.

That is not something they could help. You gave them a test and they passed it. The increased rate of injury is unfortunate, but I doubt it is as disastrous in practice as people are saying.

Read my edited/expanded post. The increased injury rate is a VERY bad thing.

 CptJake wrote:


Read my edited/expanded post. The increased injury rate is a VERY bad thing.

Noted. The infantry is not for everyone, by far. My point stands that there are women around who can and who will perform up to par even in infantry roles. If they want to, and are able to, should they not be allowed to?

Same goes for marines and just about everything.

The increased injury rate is a thing, but it was their choice to take that risk, and they knew it. You value highly your freedom of choice, no?

 trexmeyer wrote:
You have nothing to say that is based in the real world. Sorry.

Ad hominem. You will find more results in trying to argue against my points than trying to argue against me.

And for the record, I am married to a female officer who is currently a brigade commander at Bragg and a war college graduate. Look up selection rates for O6, senior service college, and brigade command to understand what that means.

I just may have a bit of insight into this that some folks do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Read my edited/expanded post. The increased injury rate is a VERY bad thing.

Noted. The infantry is not for everyone, by far. My point stands that there are women around who can and who will perform up to par even in infantry roles. If they want to, and are able to, should they not be allowed to?

Same goes for marines and just about everything.

The increased injury rate is a thing, but it was their choice to take that risk, and they knew it. You pride yourself highly on freedom of choice, no?

Not when the increased risk hurts unit readiness and budgets, and takes away the one advantage that was the main reason to start the whole deal (increased eligibility of females for senior leadership positions).