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.

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Women held us back in physical task's every time, some sections that were all male had to switch out for females to spread them around

as all male sections were "unfair" as they'd win every physical tasking

Which battalion was that with? And when?

Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?

Are you saying that warfare does not involve artillery, close quarters, extracting wounded and other activities that require the soldier to be strong to stay alive?
I was not aware bullets can disarm grenades.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?

No, that is not what is being said in that thread. What is being said in that thread is that a gun gives a weaker person a chance to defend themselves against a stronger person. Since 'a weaker person defending themselves against a stronger person' has NEVER been the goal of an infantry unit, attempting to compare the two is silly.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.

Mostly that I wondered if the females in the test actually met the scores required to get in or were just put there because they needed 100 of them. And I started with some snark, ofc - if there's women dragging the service down then apparently there's too few manly men joining.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.

Mostly that I wondered if the females in the test actually met the scores required to get in or were just put there because they needed 100 of them. And I started with some snark, ofc - if there's women dragging the service down then apparently there's too few manly men joining.

The female Marines came directly from SOI (School of Infantry) or were grabbed from other units, probably due to their willingness to try this experiment. At the moment there are no "Scores" to get into infantry other then the basic ones for all marines. As it stands in the USMC has a double standard for physical fitness, Female scores and male scores being graded differently. So these females would have had high enough scores to be Marines which is good enough for every other MOS.

And the "Snarky" comment? If you go into your average Marine Recruiting office they will probably tell you to wait until October to try and get into Infantry because all the jobs available are taken. The USMC has not had a problem getting recruits to join up, especially as Infantry.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I am unable to understand what your getting at, if you could repost with a bit clearer message, im not trying to be mean I really didn't understand your points.

Mostly that I wondered if the females in the test actually met the scores required to get in or were just put there because they needed 100 of them. And I started with some snark, ofc - if there's women dragging the service down then apparently there's too few manly men joining.

The female Marines came directly from SOI (School of Infantry) or were grabbed from other units, probably due to their willingness to try this experiment. At the moment there are no "Scores" to get into infantry other then the basic ones for all marines. As it stands in the USMC has a double standard for physical fitness, Female scores and male scores being graded differently. So these females would have had high enough scores to be Marines which is good enough for every other MOS.

And the "Snarky" comment? If you go into your average Marine Recruiting office they will probably tell you to wait until October to try and get into Infantry because all the jobs available are taken. The USMC has not had a problem getting recruits to join up, especially as Infantry.

For the time being at least, and perhaps into the future and perhaps not. The popularity of the military goes up and down on the scale of decades with a very strong downward trend over the long term. Averaging the last 50 years or so against the total past, we're at all time historical low in terms of the prestige of the military and the public view of military exploits. I certainly don't see a shortage cropping up any time soon but adopting policies that maximize the available recruit pool might not bad future proofing.

That aside this is still just one study, and what looks to be a relatively small one that. I'm not sure it's terribly meaningful given the current double standard either. That's a major fudge factor since it might be telling us more about what happens when you let people held to lower standards than you do women. Meaning I'd be curious to see what the drop in effectiveness would be if you added males who could only meet the current female standards and not the current male ones in the same proportion as they added females. Would we see a similar drop in performance?

The standards should be the standards and I'd be curious to see how women would stack up when it's only those that could meet the male standards (however few or many in number they may be), even better if placed with and compared against male groups that mapped closely with their actual scores.

Certainly I think given the same training as a fit woman my fat lazy ass would slow down a military group more than she would, they'd likely have to waive any standards at all for me to qualify to participate, and hey I've got a penis.

So, essentially this trial shows that mixed units using the current separate standards of physical fitness for both sexes perform worse than a single sex unit comprised of the higher (male) standard.
This should have been obvious, but at least now there's evidence.

What it doesn't prove is whether a mixed sex unit of equal physical capability compared to a current single sex unit performs to the same standard or worse.

You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?

Holy cow. I didn't realize modern warfare had now eliminated the need for carrying heavy loads, hand to hand, and all of those other items that require brute physical strength and endurance and was now just consisting of lines of people just shooting at each other with nothing else involved.

Feminists and their apologists need to understand the hard reality that gender equality doesnt mean we are all the same, or have the same capabilities.

Political doctrine is winning over from hard reality. Most gender equality measure are reasonable, but the miltitary is the most competitive field possible, while the highest stakes and the greatest levity as to whether people stick to the rules, so having less than an optimised armed force is illogical no matter the doctrinal upset this causes.

Israel did studies on female fighters back in the 60s and following and use female fighters comparatively extensively. The IDF are nobodies fools and use the assets they have efficiently, however for most duties they do not use mixed gender units for sound logical reasons.

One of the principle problems is what happens if a female soldier is shot in a mixed gender unit. Something the USMC current testing isnt doing much.

Wounded females are a strong emotional trigger, humans are hardwired to react to this. Far more so than wounded males, who are from the species point of view, and thus the deep conscious point of view expendable assets, and it effects female and male compatriots very differently. Lose a man and the unit remains fairly effective, lose a woman and combat effectiveness drops drastically.

Female only units can and do work, but are sometimes better and usually less adapt at combat tasks.

 CptJake wrote:
You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.

Why not? Pay them to partake on their way out, or call up some who already were. Find some slackers to train in a standard program just for the experiment. Seriously there are ways of getting the data.

 Henry wrote:
So, essentially this trial shows that mixed units using the current separate standards of physical fitness for both sexes perform worse than a single sex unit comprised of the higher (male) standard.
This should have been obvious, but at least now there's evidence.

What it doesn't prove is whether a mixed sex unit of equal physical capability compared to a current single sex unit performs to the same standard or worse.

No, the females chosen for that test all had to meet the minimum male standards.

From: http://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/MessagesDisplay/tabid/13286/Article/164709/call-for-volunteers-to-support-the-ground-combat-element-integrated-task-force.aspx

B.5. ALL PARTICIPANTS FOR COMBAT ARMS MOS'S MUST BE CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING AT LEAST A THIRD CLASS SCORE ON THE MALE PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST (AGE 17-26).

And during the test they were all evaluated according to a single standard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.

Why not? Pay them to partake on their way out, or call up some who already were. Find some slackers to train in a standard program just for the experiment. Seriously there are ways of getting the data.

Why not? Because there are man power caps in place and holding guys who cannot meet minimum standards is a massive waste of tax payer dollars and not fair to the service that has to fill slots with them.

AND because the actual test used females who COULD meet the minimum male standards. So your whole premise is based on wrong information.

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?

Holy cow. I didn't realize modern warfare had now eliminated the need for carrying heavy loads, hand to hand, and all of those other items that require brute physical strength and endurance and was now just consisting of lines of people just shooting at each other with nothing else involved.

Being a infantry man for 10 years there is more to it then shooting a weapon. I was a assist gunner when I was a private and worked on the gun teams for my entire 10 years. My ruck as a assist gunner weighted over 100 lbs and my LBE was another 55 lbs. I would hump that ruck and gear sometimes over 15 miles on certain missions and it would break most men in my platoon. Nobody wanted to be on the gun teams because they knew they would have to hump x2 the weight of everybody else. Seen a lot of guys during my time that could not meet the physical demands of the airborne infantry and get thrown out of the army. On jumps add another 65 lbs of parachute onto the over 150 lbs of gear. The military should not be a social experiment...

 CptJake wrote:
No, the females chosen for that test all had to meet the minimum male standards.

Cool, thanks for that.

 Chute82 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Isn't it interesting that in the latest gun thread we are told that the point of guns is to level the playing field between weaker and stronger people in combat, then in this thread we are told that weaker people armed with guns are at a disadvantage in combat?

Holy cow. I didn't realize modern warfare had now eliminated the need for carrying heavy loads, hand to hand, and all of those other items that require brute physical strength and endurance and was now just consisting of lines of people just shooting at each other with nothing else involved.

Being a infantry man for 10 years there is more to it then shooting a weapon. I was a assist gunner when I was a private and worked on the gun teams for my entire 10 years. My ruck as a assist gunner weighted over 100 lbs and my LBE was another 55 lbs. I would hump that ruck and gear sometimes over 15 miles on certain missions and it would break most men in my platoon. Nobody wanted to be on the gun teams because they knew they would have to hump x2 the weight of everybody else. Seen a lot of guys during my time that could not meet the physical demands of the airborne infantry and get thrown out of the army. On jumps add another 65 lbs of parachute onto the over 150 lbs of gear. The military should not be a social experiment...

Well spoken. It was a bit odd to me how Kilkrazy seems to believe all you need to do in the military is stand there shooting a rifle.

 CptJake wrote:

 Henry wrote:
So, essentially this trial shows that mixed units using the current separate standards of physical fitness for both sexes perform worse than a single sex unit comprised of the higher (male) standard.
This should have been obvious, but at least now there's evidence.

What it doesn't prove is whether a mixed sex unit of equal physical capability compared to a current single sex unit performs to the same standard or worse.

No, the females chosen for that test all had to meet the minimum male standards.

From: http://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/MessagesDisplay/tabid/13286/Article/164709/call-for-volunteers-to-support-the-ground-combat-element-integrated-task-force.aspx

B.5. ALL PARTICIPANTS FOR COMBAT ARMS MOS'S MUST BE CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING AT LEAST A THIRD CLASS SCORE ON THE MALE PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST (AGE 17-26).

And during the test they were all evaluated according to a single standard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.

Why not? Pay them to partake on their way out, or call up some who already were. Find some slackers to train in a standard program just for the experiment. Seriously there are ways of getting the data.

Why not? Because there are man power caps in place and holding guys who cannot meet minimum standards is a massive waste of tax payer dollars and not fair to the service that has to fill slots with them.

AND because the actual test used females who COULD meet the minimum male standards. So your whole premise is based on wrong information.

And in the USMC the minimum male standard is failing. In my battalion if you weren't a 1st Class PFT you were put on remedial PT which meant you gave up your lunch break to go work out even more then we already did. The minimums for males btw is I believe 3 Pull ups 3 mile run in 27:59 and something stupid like 50 crunches. But with that said I think they are going by the worst PASSING Grade for a male PFT which would be a 135: Pullups are worth 5 points each, Crunches are worth 1 point each and on the 3 mile run every 10 seconds over 18minutes reduces your score by 1 point (you start with 100 points for the run)

And why would you compare the worst failing male marines to the females attempting to be infantry? I don't grasp the reasoning behind that

 CptJake wrote:

 Henry wrote:
So, essentially this trial shows that mixed units using the current separate standards of physical fitness for both sexes perform worse than a single sex unit comprised of the higher (male) standard.
This should have been obvious, but at least now there's evidence.

What it doesn't prove is whether a mixed sex unit of equal physical capability compared to a current single sex unit performs to the same standard or worse.

No, the females chosen for that test all had to meet the minimum male standards.

From: http://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/MessagesDisplay/tabid/13286/Article/164709/call-for-volunteers-to-support-the-ground-combat-element-integrated-task-force.aspx

B.5. ALL PARTICIPANTS FOR COMBAT ARMS MOS'S MUST BE CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING AT LEAST A THIRD CLASS SCORE ON THE MALE PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST (AGE 17-26).

And during the test they were all evaluated according to a single standard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You can't add in males that are only capable of meeting the lower female standards. Any males meeting that criteria will have ben kicked out of the service.

Why not? Pay them to partake on their way out, or call up some who already were. Find some slackers to train in a standard program just for the experiment. Seriously there are ways of getting the data.

Why not? Because there are man power caps in place and holding guys who cannot meet minimum standards is a massive waste of tax payer dollars and not fair to the service that has to fill slots with them.

AND because the actual test used females who COULD meet the minimum male standards. So your whole premise is based on wrong information.

Well that makes the study better in my view. I was taking Ghazkuul post roughly at face value, so the error is mine there. I can still imagine a fair amount of fudge that our conversation hasn't specifically accounted for but let's just give the study administrators the benefit of the doubt and assume their controls were good enough such that results can be strictly accounted for by the participants being female. That is they controlled for every possible performance variable and assuming all other predictors are held equal over the data, femaleness alone can be conclusively held as the sole cause of the performance drop.

I'd still like to see more studies with larger sample sizes, if I've been following correctly (and I may not have been) this was done once with a couple hundred groups. Replication is the name of the game here.

If given all the above, I can see a rational basis for a gender-based exclusion policy in this case. That is:

A) Multiple studies with large groups can confirm that being female alone, is enough to cause a performance drop.
B) That performance drop is sufficiently large to represent an increased risk out of line with other known risk factors considered acceptable.
C) No reasonable steps exist to sufficiently mitigate either A or B exist.
D) The evaluation model being used for all these has sound grounding in scientifically proven predictors of overall success in the field. If only because armies are organizations that tend to get stuck in established ways of thinking and sometimes overlook important variables that are either new or long ignored.


I'd find no grounds to object to the males only policy. In general I'm very wary of policies that place restrictions on people simply as a matter of the broad classifications they belong to. It's usually a pretty big non-starter for me. This does deserve to be thoroughly tested, verified, along with workaround attemps simply because it passes a basic sanity test at face value. Let's just be sure first, like properly scientifically sure if we want to clamp back down on the tradition here. The world isn't going to melt if the data comes back "Given these reasonably met conditions, there exist women that can enter combat with no unacceptable negative effects" nor will it melt if "There are no reasonably met conditions in which women can participate in combat without creating unacceptable risk"

EDIT:

And why would you compare the worst failing male marines to the females attempting to be infantry? I don't grasp the reasoning behind that

It's to keep your variables clean. For just having an easy model, let's assume a simple hypothetical system in which people are rated on a scale from 1-100 before doing the practical tests.

"Minimum Passing Men:" 70
"Minimum Passing Women: 50

"Men's Average:" 80
"Women's Average:" 60

If we just grab a punch of random passing women, or random average women and put them up against the average men we're getting a whole bunch of 55-65s against 75s-85s. The performance scores are a major variance beyond gender. A clean test might choose all participants that are rated at 70, or 80 or some other number in the range. With these held constant measured performance isn't a confuding factor against gender.

The low scoring men are useful because we get to see the effects of adding in a "60" to the group, and have that 60 be male when previously they were all female. If we see a similar performance drop it's an indicator that the casual factor may be the "60" score, rather than femaleness.

This experiment used 400 Marines for the testing population and dozens more as testers the USMC is only about 182k strong so they used a fairly LARGE sample of the population for testing. There is absolutely no way you could replicate this test hundreds of times.

The low scoring men are useful because we get to see the effects of adding in a "60" to the group, and have that 60 be male when previously they were all female. If we see a similar performance drop it's an indicator that the casual factor may be the "60" score, rather than femaleness.

It still doesn't make sense though because in the USMC those men would be kicked out for not being physically fit enough. So what your saying is you want to compare male marines who got kicked out for not being good enough to the average woman.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
This experiment used 400 Marines for the testing population and dozens more as testers the USMC is only about 182k strong so they used a fairly LARGE sample of the population for testing. There is absolutely no way you could replicate this test hundreds of times.

There are a few solutions to this. First you don't need actual marines. You only need people that have taken proper marine training, been properly rated by marine standards and have done the practical tests in proper marine fashion. If further verification is beyond the means of the USMC or the scope of what they're allowed to do the process could be done by some external entity with non-marines meeting the specifications I outlined under supervision and guidance from the USMC.

Secondly you could do these over a longer time scale. Proper studies in other fields sometimes run for 20 or 30 years, depending on what they're testing and the availability proper testing opportunities. If the way this needs to be batched out demands a longer timeline so be it.


From my perspective without proper data a decision either way is kind of arbitrary, by the very definition of not having concrete data. If my government is going to be making arbitrary decisions I'm going tend to prefer they err on the side of avoiding avoiding class discrimination as one of the highest priorities. This is because I tend to see in history a broad trend of these being more socially harmful than anything. If I'm going to move over to the side that uses gender alone as the deciding factor, I want thoroughly sound proof before I'm going to get in that corner. That's just one citizens opinion of how he wants his government working and it's as much value or as little value as any other.

It still doesn't make sense though because in the USMC those men would be kicked out for not being physically fit enough. So what your saying is you want to compare male marines who got kicked out for not being good enough to the average woman.

What I want is clean variables. Where they can go "Yeah. We've looked at everything, held all other feasible factors constant it's femaleness alone among them that causes the performance drop". Doing things like checking low performing males is a necessary part of getting that clean data., even if they would never actually be part of the units normally.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
This experiment used 400 Marines for the testing population and dozens more as testers the USMC is only about 182k strong so they used a fairly LARGE sample of the population for testing. There is absolutely no way you could replicate this test hundreds of times.

There are a few solutions to this. First you don't need actual marines. You only need people that have taken proper marine training, been properly rated by marine standards and have done the practical tests in proper marine fashion. If further verification is beyond the means of the USMC or the scope of what they're allowed to do the process could be done by some external entity with non-marines meeting the specifications I outlined under supervision and guidance from the USMC.

Secondly you could do these over a longer time scale. Proper studies in other field sometimes run for 20 or 30 years, depending on what they're testing and the availability proper testing opportunities. If the way this needs to be batched out demands a longer timeline so be it.


From my perspective without proper data a decision either way is kind of arbitrary, by the very definition of not having concrete data. If my government is going to be making arbitrary decisions I'm going tend to prefer they err on the side of avoiding avoiding class discrimination as one of the highest priorities. This is because I tend to see in history a broad trend of these being more socially harmful than anything. I'm going to move over to the side that uses gender alone as the deciding factor, I want thoroughly sound proof before I'm going to get in that corner. That's just one citizens opinion of how he wants his government working and it's as much value or as little value as any other.

It still doesn't make sense though because in the USMC those men would be kicked out for not being physically fit enough. So what your saying is you want to compare male marines who got kicked out for not being good enough to the average woman.

What I want is clean variables. Where they can go "Yeah. We've looked at everything, held all other feasible factors constant it's femaleness alone among them that causes the performance drop". Doing things like checking low performing males is a necessary part of getting that clean data., even if they would never actually be part of the units normally.

This was a test run by the Marines for their own internal purposes not for the broader "Woman combat" issue. The President ordered all Branches to integrate by 2016 unless they request a special waiver. This was done to see if MARINE females were up to the task not FEMALES in general. No offense to other branches but I would rather have a Marine by my side in a firefight then anyone else. (Im not including special forces because Marines aren't special forces).

If you used random civvies in this test it would be meaningless. Before joining the fleet ALL marines are subjected to at the minimum 4 months of training and then at least another month of follow on A Schooling which can take up to 2 years depending on the MOS. There is a reason Marines are classified as Light Infantry, we can operate in every combat environment with minimal support, we carry in everything we need and we never leave a Marine behind. Civvies don't have that mentality and the test would be useless.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
This experiment used 400 Marines for the testing population and dozens more as testers the USMC is only about 182k strong so they used a fairly LARGE sample of the population for testing. There is absolutely no way you could replicate this test hundreds of times.

There are a few solutions to this. First you don't need actual marines. You only need people that have taken proper marine training, been properly rated by marine standards and have done the practical tests in proper marine fashion. If further verification is beyond the means of the USMC or the scope of what they're allowed to do the process could be done by some external entity with non-marines meeting the specifications I outlined under supervision and guidance from the USMC.

Secondly you could do these over a longer time scale. Proper studies in other field sometimes run for 20 or 30 years, depending on what they're testing and the availability proper testing opportunities. If the way this needs to be batched out demands a longer timeline so be it.


From my perspective without proper data a decision either way is kind of arbitrary, by the very definition of not having concrete data. If my government is going to be making arbitrary decisions I'm going tend to prefer they err on the side of avoiding avoiding class discrimination as one of the highest priorities. This is because I tend to see in history a broad trend of these being more socially harmful than anything. I'm going to move over to the side that uses gender alone as the deciding factor, I want thoroughly sound proof before I'm going to get in that corner. That's just one citizens opinion of how he wants his government working and it's as much value or as little value as any other.

It still doesn't make sense though because in the USMC those men would be kicked out for not being physically fit enough. So what your saying is you want to compare male marines who got kicked out for not being good enough to the average woman.

What I want is clean variables. Where they can go "Yeah. We've looked at everything, held all other feasible factors constant it's femaleness alone among them that causes the performance drop". Doing things like checking low performing males is a necessary part of getting that clean data., even if they would never actually be part of the units normally.

This was a test run by the Marines for their own internal purposes not for the broader "Woman combat" issue. The President ordered all Branches to integrate by 2016 unless they request a special waiver. This was done to see if MARINE females were up to the task not FEMALES in general. No offense to other branches but I would rather have a Marine by my side in a firefight then anyone else. (Im not including special forces because Marines aren't special forces).

If you used random civvies in this test it would be meaningless. Before joining the fleet ALL marines are subjected to at the minimum 4 months of training and then at least another month of follow on A Schooling which can take up to 2 years depending on the MOS. There is a reason Marines are classified as Light Infantry, we can operate in every combat environment with minimal support, we carry in everything we need and we never leave a Marine behind. Civvies don't have that mentality and the test would be useless.

Then you get people with the identical 4 months, and 2 years of A schooling program. You replicate everything exactly a person going into the experiment set. That's what a proper model is, you reproduce all important factors. Besides that's just one solution. If externalizing the tests is a non-starter, a longer timeline could be adopted internally. If they USMC can do 500 people per year, in 30 they'll have done 15,000.

No matter if it's females in general, or the USMC specifically the principles remain the same: Rational decisions are made on concrete data. Decisions made without concerete data are arbitrary. Where my government makes arbitrary decisions, I want them erring away from using class distinctions as a sole standard.

No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.

Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.

A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.

Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.

A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere

Do you understand what data is? Do you understand what working out variables is? It sounds like you think I'm saying if we do this enough suddenly the average woman will be as tall/strong/fast and enduring as the average man. Which is not my point and specific outcomes and already known averages aren't really what I'm talking about.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.

Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.

A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere

Do you understand what data is? Do you understand what working out variables is? It sounds like you think I'm saying if we do this enough suddenly the average woman will be as tall/strong/fast and enduring as the average man. Which is not my point and specific outcomes and already known averages aren't really what I'm talking about.

Then what your talking about doesnt matter. this isnt a statistics class or a social experiment. This is Americas Elite light infantry. If you want to correlate a bunch of useless data feel free to, but don't force the military into some ridiculous PC campaign

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

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.

Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.

A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere

Do you understand what data is? Do you understand what working out variables is? It sounds like you think I'm saying if we do this enough suddenly the average woman will be as tall/strong/fast and enduring as the average man. Which is not my point and specific outcomes and already known averages aren't really what I'm talking about.

Then what your talking about doesnt matter. this isnt a statistics class or a social experiment. This is Americas Elite light infantry. If you want to correlate a bunch of useless data feel free to, but don't force the military into some ridiculous PC campaign

You've said nothing here. There is literally nothing to respond to.Nothing about testing data, and verifying ideas can be "PC". Like if the data comes back "Women are worthless at this" then that's the data, however unpalatable it may be to some worldviews. It's about taking an objective, empirical view so we don't have be making decisions on the basis of subjective values.

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

except that the averages do matter. For every male that gets hurt training in the infantry 6 females will get hurt doing the same thing. This greatly reduces combat readiness. I don't know if you were in the military or deployed but let me tell you how Fething terrible it is to have to hot swap new personnel into a unit about to deploy simply because someone got hurt. We had a Marine get hurt before we deployed, the Marine that replaced him was a liability for the first 1-3 months because he didn't know our unit or how to function in it.

Why should the Defense department have to waste its funding putting females through these courses with such a high failure rate when that money could be used to pay for programs and equipment that is needed.

Are we going to increase the DoD funding to allow for females to have their Equal opportunity?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
No civilians is going to sacrifice that much of their lives to do this test unless your going to pay them significantly more then what Marines get paid. Especially when you factor in the horrible conditions that Marines put up with in training.

Secondly, No, the USMC can't spare 500 personnel every year for a useless training scenario in which the out comes will ALWAYS be the same. The average female is inferior to her Male companions in ground combat due to difference in physiology. On average men are stronger, faster and able to carry more weight over longer distances.

A small percentage of females COULD make the cut to be infantry, but they will suffer significantly higher failure rates and injury rates which will cost the US tax payers more money then is necessary and will pull money away from the defense budget that could be better used elsewhere

Do you understand what data is? Do you understand what working out variables is? It sounds like you think I'm saying if we do this enough suddenly the average woman will be as tall/strong/fast and enduring as the average man. Which is not my point and specific outcomes and already known averages aren't really what I'm talking about.

Then what your talking about doesnt matter. this isnt a statistics class or a social experiment. This is Americas Elite light infantry. If you want to correlate a bunch of useless data feel free to, but don't force the military into some ridiculous PC campaign

You've said nothing here. There is literally nothing to respond to.Nothing about testing data, and verifying ideas can be "PC". Like if the data comes back "Women are worthless at this" then that's the data, however unpalatable it may be to some worldviews. It's about taking an objective, empirical view so we don't have be making decisions on the basis of subjective values.

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?

I understand you like the whole idea of testing everything to find out a bunch of useless data but what good will it do?

 Ghazkuul wrote:


The data is already in, it has been in for years now. Woman CAN CUT IT! they are good enough to do any job in the Military. The problem is that the numbers that can cut the mustard are far to LOW to make it worth the effort. What more proof do you want? would you like a few dozen more tests to prove what we already know?

Again I'll just take your assertions at face value for the sake of making things simpler. Though I don't think your conclusion is the most reasonable one to draw from your assertions. What you're describing here is not case of the rates being "too LOW to make it worth the effort" but for developing filtration & verification systems that can catch that top % of women with fewer costs. I'd rather throw some money short term on developing a process that can find that top .5% or whatever it is at reasonable costs in the future, than just deny them the opportunity for the sake of convenience.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


The data is already in, it has been in for years now. Woman CAN CUT IT! they are good enough to do any job in the Military. The problem is that the numbers that can cut the mustard are far to LOW to make it worth the effort. What more proof do you want? would you like a few dozen more tests to prove what we already know?

Again I'll just take your assertions at face value for the sake of making things simpler. Though I don't think your conclusion is the most reasonable one to draw from your assertions. What you're describing here is not case of the rates being "too LOW to make it worth the effort" but for developing filtration & verification system that can catch that top % of women with fewer costs. I'd rather throw a couple billion on developing a process that can find that top .5% or whatever at reasonable costs in the future, than just deny them the opportunity for the sake of convenience.

I guess you missed that part where I pointed out that females were 6x more likely to be injured. I would rather not spend Billions finding that .5% of females who want to join the military who would be capable of doing infantry jobs.

Currently Woman make up 7.11% of the USMC that would mean about 13k ish females and .5% of that would be about 60 females. Your willing to spend billions to allow 60 woman the opportunity to join the Infantry, which historically the rate is very low so your looking at even a fraction of this.