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:
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).

If your motivation to keep women out of combat roles is to make it easier for them to reach officer positions, I can see that your motivations are fairly placed.

However, I insist that it's the individual's choice here. If a woman doesn't want that and says she wants to go boots on the ground mode, and that she can pass all required tests satisfactorily, what will you tell her?

We're getting REAL close to 'lock it up' territory here.

RULE #1 is NOT optional.

 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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
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).

If your motivation to keep women out of combat roles is to make it easier for them to reach officer positions, I can see that your motivations are fairly placed.

However, I insist that it's the individual's choice here. If a woman doesn't want that and says she wants to go boots on the ground mode, and that she can pass all required tests satisfactorily, what will you tell her?

Personally? I tell her NO. It is an easy choice

Lets look at it from a slightly different perspective. The various services run various schools. Lets use Ranger School as our example. Or we could use the infantry officer course the Marines run. Both have allowed females to attempt the course. Zero have passed the Marine course and about 10% of those who made it into Ranger school made it through. So in one case you have a population that has a 0% pass rate and in the other a 10% pass rate. The male population that gets into those schools has a significantly higher pass rate (about 65% for Ranger school). The slots for these schools are limited (they can only train so many folks per cycle and run so many cycles per year) and each slot costs $$$. So there is the opportunity cost (putting in someone not likely to pass takes away the opportunity for someone that did have a much better chance of passing) and an economical cost. To exacerbate this the population that is least likely to pass is also the most likely to get hurt, and when hurt, they get hurt worse, which also has a cost ($$$ and as if not more importantly the fantastic folks that try and get hurt badly have their careers ended).

Individual choice has nothing to do with this. No one, NO ONE, has the 'right' to even join the military let alone the 'right' to pick MOS/branch. Each service has a manpower cap and very specific numbers of slots to fill in each MOS/branch. Some individuals may get lucky and be offered the MOS/branch of their choice, but it is NOT a guarantee nor should it be.

Your Freedom of Choice canard is just that. Freedom of choice does not allow you to force tax payers to carry a heavier burden.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 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.

They get injured 6 times the normal rate NOT IN COMBAT. So in a place where nobody is trying to harm them, with safety procedures and so on they get 6 times the normal injury rate. Imagine how much that climbs when deployed in combat in a place with lots more "harmful things". Injury costs money. Think about how many people are involved when someone is injured and the supplies + time that uses. In combat this means you might have to risk your own life to save someone who not suited for the environment they are in. This means that the people who are more capable now have to compensate for that loss in help.

It's really easy to say "same test" and wave it away, but the real problems come after the test too. Lets be real here, looking at the statistics they can't even handle the training for combat without a lot of issues. How well is that going to translate to the real thing?

Why should an organisation whose goal it is to wage war (and more) pump disproportionate amounts of money into a small group so they can attempt to do something they are obviously not suited for? The only real reason is as Ghaz says... for the feelings.

It's nothing to do with "personal choice", it's nothing to do with "same test same results" it should be about efficiency. Pumping money into a handicapped minority so they can waste resources, endanger others and underperform is not efficient at all I think.

So to recap, the tests, and the marines in this thread tell us this is a bad idea. Others say everyone needs a chance to prove themselves- but is not being evaluated for combat readiness that chance?

Do we need to lose units of mixed infantry in similar situations in order to agree that this is not the best use of our female soldiers?

You could use a sample size that creates results that are more accurate. Statistics are funny that way.

You could repeat the test with a male/female ratio that is closer to what you would actually expect to see in combat. Considering that 7% of the Marine Corps is women it seems weird that they tested a 50/50 mix. A test putting a 200 men unit vs a 186 men / 14 women unit may paint a more realistic picture.

You could do the same test with the other branches to see if it the test results are a marine thing or if it is an infantry thing.

At a minimum you do the test again. An experiment that can't be reproduced, or hasn't been attempted to be reproduced, is a useless experiment.

 d-usa wrote:
You could use a sample size that creates results that are more accurate. Statistics are funny that way.

You could repeat the test with a male/female ratio that is closer to what you would actually expect to see in combat. Considering that 7% of the Marine Corps is women it seems weird that they tested a 50/50 mix. A test putting a 200 men unit vs a 186 men / 14 women unit may paint a more realistic picture.

You could do the same test with the other branches to see if it the test results are a marine thing or if it is an infantry thing.

At a minimum you do the test again. An experiment that can't be reproduced, or hasn't been attempted to be reproduced, is a useless experiment.

well let me give you the results of that test now.

All activities such as Rucks and movement under fire drills where everyone has to participate, the mixed unit will do worse. but the scores will narrow markedly because theres fewer woman to slow the unit down

So in the end, adding woman degrades units combat efficiency. The more you add the weaker the unit. So .....what good does that do for your statistics? Ohh and injury rates will stay the same

They didn't just test a 50-50 mix. They varied the ratio of females in the squads/platoons to give more realistic ratios (2 or so per squad) along with higher ratios.

What's the 31% of things they did better?

So you agree that this particular study does not paint an accurate picture of the effects of an integrated infantry unit in the Marine Corps?

Good.

 CptJake wrote:
They didn't just test a 50-50 mix. They varied the ratio of females in the squads/platoons to give more realistic ratios (2 or so per squad) along with higher ratios.

And stats like this:

Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males

Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males

Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males

have nothing to do with squad composition.

 CptJake wrote:
They didn't just test a 50-50 mix. They varied the ratio of females in the squads/platoons to give more realistic ratios (2 or so per squad) along with higher ratios.

That's what I was asking earlier in the thread and I never got a response to that. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the actual papers (wouldn't let me at work).

 CptJake wrote:
They didn't just test a 50-50 mix. They varied the ratio of females in the squads/platoons to give more realistic ratios (2 or so per squad) along with higher ratios.

So they did this to get a picture of what the situation would be now, plus had some heavier mixes to simulate larger numbers of women in the Corps?

Well if the injury rate for female soldiers is indeed higher, and their overall performance lower than the average male marine, I see no reason why to bother with female Marines in combat roles. If such facts are true it indicates that recruiting female marines for combat rules is a waste of resources that could be put to other uses for maximum efficiency to be achieved.

It doesn't matter if a woman can indeed pass the tests, if statistics show she's more liable to be a greater drain on resources, then simply don't let her join. The military is only about equality up until the point that it begins to compromise their effectiveness in both peacetime and war.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Well if the injury rate for female soldiers is indeed higher, and their overall performance lower than the average male marine, I see no reason why to bother with female Marines in combat roles. If such facts are true it indicates that recruiting female marines for combat rules is a waste of resources that could be put to other uses for maximum efficiency to be achieved.

It doesn't matter if a woman can indeed pass the tests, if statistics show she's more liable to be a greater drain on resources, then simply don't let her join. The military is only about equality up until the point that it begins to compromise their effectiveness in both peacetime and war.

That is why we have excellent mixed gender combat SUPPORT units. And even in those units we try to minimize the exposure of females to line combat. For instance my Battalion would routinely deploy and break into small 4-8 man teams that would join Infantry units throughout the AO. These teams would be only males, while the females would integrate into the OCE's or the OCAC and would stay behind at one of the larger installations. This allowed for the best possible use of available resources.

 d-usa wrote:
You could use a sample size that creates results that are more accurate. Statistics are funny that way.

You could repeat the test with a male/female ratio that is closer to what you would actually expect to see in combat. Considering that 7% of the Marine Corps is women it seems weird that they tested a 50/50 mix. A test putting a 200 men unit vs a 186 men / 14 women unit may paint a more realistic picture.

You could do the same test with the other branches to see if it the test results are a marine thing or if it is an infantry thing.

At a minimum you do the test again. An experiment that can't be reproduced, or hasn't been attempted to be reproduced, is a useless experiment.

And even then, you're not controlling for capability, and hence not properly isolating gender as a factor.

Did someone post a link to the actual study, or do we just have that 4 page summary?

Stop with the snarky stuff Ghaz, that's getting pretty rude.

To the rest of the thread, put more thought into your posts and whether or not they're rude. There are a lot that are pushing it.

 Wyzilla wrote:
The military is only about equality up until the point that it begins to compromise their effectiveness in both peacetime and war.

Except for those pesky selective services cards males have to fill out...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/

To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/

To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.

Imagine that.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/

To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.

Imagine that.

Yeah go figure, the people who are actually affected by this decision think its terrible and don't want it. But when has someones life mattered in the face of Social justice for all.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/

To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.

Imagine that.

Yeah go figure, the people who are actually affected by this decision think its terrible and don't want it. But when has someones life mattered in the face of Social justice for all.

Unfortunately, it looks like we're probably going to find out.

Interestingly, the women performed notably better on the physical fitness test. If that's repeatable, then there should be a way to leverage that for female servicewomen. I'm not sure how, exactly, but I'm sure one of you can fill in that blank spot.

My initial thought is is say, well, the standards should reflect what the job actually entails, and it doesn't matter if the results aren't gender balanced, as long as the opportunities are. That's the best way to do it.

But maybe that's not the best way to do it; maybe we should leverage the (median) biological difference between men and women in a useful way. Women use less oxygen and work better in groups; so perhaps there should be a service bias for roles where that is useful, like submariners, whereas it would seem from this that men are more accurate in frontline combat roles.

 Ouze wrote:
Interestingly, the women performed notably better on the physical fitness test. If that's repeatable, then there should be a way to leverage that for female servicewomen. I'm not sure how, exactly, but I'm sure one of you can fill in that blank spot.

My initial thought is is say, well, the standards should reflect what the job actually entails, and it doesn't matter if the results aren't gender balanced, as long as the opportunities are. That's the best way to do it.

But maybe that's not the best way to do it; maybe we should leverage the (median) biological difference between men and women in a useful way. Women use less oxygen and work better in groups; so perhaps there should be a service bias for roles where that is useful, like submariners, whereas it would seem from this that men are more accurate in frontline combat roles.

Operation Petticoat, eh?

 Hordini wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/

To summarize the article, both male and females marines are ticked off at the Secretary of the Navy and both male and female Marines feel the test was more then fair and agree that woman aren't made to be Marine Infantry.

Imagine that.

Yeah go figure, the people who are actually affected by this decision think its terrible and don't want it. But when has someones life mattered in the face of Social justice for all.

Unfortunately, it looks like we're probably going to find out.

I don't know its kind of a weird situation right now. Because you have the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is a career politician and wouldn't know his butt from a battleship. And he is the one who is saying he is going to force the Marines to accept females into combat arms. But on the other hand you have General Dunford USMC who was our commandant before Obama took him as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and that position is the HIGHEST military position in the US and is the direct adviser to the president in all military matters.

So it is going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

*SIDE NOTE: if you read the article I posted it answers a lot of the questions asked in here about the qualifications of the females who participated in this study. Specifically they were trained for 5 months with their male colleagues BEFORE undergoing the tests. Furthermore these females actually had higher PFT scores then their male colleagues (these were done on the female scale though)

What's interesting isn't the results of the study (which are pretty much common sense given confirmation), but that the results of the study were published. DOD civilian leadership has made it clear that everything's opening to females unless an exemption's granted, and we've known how pretty much everybody but the Marines is going to handle that. The Army has apparently realized the futility of struggle, the Air Force hardly cares, the Navy's in much the same boat (and the only contentious billets would be Naval Special Warfare, which has said, "Sure, bring 'em on," knowing full well they're not going to make BUD/S easier and thus not have to worry about integration, though we may be seeing some female SWCCs in the future).

But the Marines have been the big question mark. They've yet to get a female through IOC; they've had to postpone the "everybody does 3 pull-ups, regardless of sex" decree for like three years running now to avoid having to separate over 50% of female Marines, who continue to not be able to hit that standard. Institutional thinking appears to have tilted pretty hard into the "women can't hack it," camp, and this study seems like it might be laying the groundwork for a fight with SECNAV over an exemption, if not for standard infantry slots, then at least for MARSOC and FORECON stuff.

An injury rate six times higher is quite a significant issue here (possibly the only one). If it's from the weight of the gear though (as the report seems to make out to be the case), it might be possible to design a different form of rucksack, or straps that adjust/support differently for female troops. Women are physiologically different after all, and different gear may help with that. If they are having difficulty with the weight of the guns, then that shows that some combat weapons are designed with a man in mind, and specialists should be consulted to see if a lighter weapon could be designed that would be equally effective but with a weight saving. Such a weight saving might also make it so male soldiers can carry more in the way of supplies.

I would also be interested to see the effects of an all female unit in comparison. If the gender is the main issue that is somehow affecting rifle accuracy for example, creating an all-female unit should easily rectify that issue (because the only way gender could affect that is by distraction).

This is interesting data, but so far, all it shows is that further testing and possibly different equipment design/procurement is necessary. Certainly, this says nothing definitive one way or another. The ability to recruit from the other half of the population for the Marines would be a significant military advantage for the States, and so the project to find a way to safely make that possible should continue for the present.

Seaward wrote:
What's interesting isn't the results of the study (which are pretty much common sense given confirmation), but that the results of the study were published. DOD civilian leadership has made it clear that everything's opening to females unless an exemption's granted, and we've known how pretty much everybody but the Marines is going to handle that. The Army has apparently realized the futility of struggle, the Air Force hardly cares, the Navy's in much the same boat (and the only contentious billets would be Naval Special Warfare, which has said, "Sure, bring 'em on," knowing full well they're not going to make BUD/S easier and thus not have to worry about integration, though we may be seeing some female SWCCs in the future).

But the Marines have been the big question mark. They've yet to get a female through IOC; they've had to postpone the "everybody does 3 pull-ups, regardless of sex" decree for like three years running now to avoid having to separate over 50% of female Marines, who continue to not be able to hit that standard. Institutional thinking appears to have tilted pretty hard into the "women can't hack it," camp, and this study seems like it might be laying the groundwork for a fight with SECNAV over an exemption, if not for standard infantry slots, then at least for MARSOC and FORECON stuff.

Actually the 3 pullup minimum was first tried in 2011 but it was found only a small percentage of Females could do it without training (in the order of 1-5%). Then they changed it to 2012-13-14-15 and now 16 because not enough of them can do it, STILL.

Males do 3 for minimum and 20 for maximum with each pullup counting for 5 points for your final PFT score.
Females do 3 for minimum and 8 for maximum with the first 3 pullups counting for 75 points and each additional pullup adding 5 more points.

It is rather important to note that as you and I both pointed out "Civilian DoD". The Secretary of the Navy is a Career politician who knows as much about the Military as your average college graduate. "Only idiots who couldn't get into college join the military" so yeah his opinion means about as much as a fart in a space suit.